PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd. - WON

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Hi M1,

here's the evidence pack:

www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/downloads/POPLAevidence.zip

I have redacted the sensitive information, which I hope doesn't compromise the document for you. I do confess to being a bit less confident than you, having read the pack now!

Cheers,
Marc.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Probably best to respond. I'll see what i can do tomorrow after the tennis.

M1

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Respond to Creative Parking? Their e-mail just said:

In response to the appeal submitted, please find attached the Operator evidence.

You will be contacted by POPLA with the outcome of your appeal in due course.

Regards,
Alexandra Wilson
Creative Parking Solutions Plc
33/35 Daws Lane, London NW7 4SD

Cheers,
Marc.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

To popla

M1

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Sorry to be seriously dense here, but what is there to reply to? POPLA haven't reviewed my appeal yet and that e-mail from Creative Parking doesn't say a response is require/expected. Are you saying that I need to respond to address the comments made in the evidence pack so POPLA can take it into account when they do review my case?

Cheers,
Marc.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Yes, but like i said i'll do it tomorrow

M1

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

In response to the popla evidence pack received from CEL i would like to reply as follows.

The photographs from the location are undated and the signs are not what were present on the date of the parking event. Although the driver did not see the signs i returned at a later date to inspect and there was a 10 minute free parking time which is not included in the picture of the signs provided by CEL. These signs have since been changed and the new signs do not form a contract with anyone from before the installation. As such there is no evidence of a contract at all and the appeal should be upheld

The PCN supplied is not compliant with the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4. As such the keeper has no liability. There is no evidence at all provided by the operator and as such the appeal should be upheld.

Cel state in their appeal response " In this case, the wording in this case is instructive evidence and seems to indicate that simply parking was free for permit holders Monday - Friday or Saturday & Sunday £1 per hour providing payment is made within 10 minutes of arrival and £100 for failing to park in accordance with these terms"

Clearly that is a penalty. It is broadly in line with the Judgement in Parking Eye v Cargius which distinguished paid car parks such as the one in question from free car parks as in Beavis (which in itself is subject to appeal in the court of appeal). It is also consistent with the appeal in CEL v Mccafferty in which it was decided the charges are penalties if the charge also covers trivial items such as not phoning in to pay quickly enough. It is not a genuine offer of parking all day for £100 it is a clear penalty.

CEL attempt, whilst saying it's not a genuine pre estimate of loss anyway, to say if itis a genuine pre estimate of loss it's based on xxxxx but in actual fact do not explain what any of the items costs (some which are actually costs of business and not for a genuine pre estimate of loss calculation).


This multiple choice option of it's a contractual sum or it's a genuine pre estimate of loss is no more than an attempt to justify a sum which in reality is no more than a penalty charge hoping that someone will take pity on them.


CEL claim they cannot disclose a contract because of the data prtection act, however it is very difficult to envisage any commercial contract containing sensitive personal information as covered by the act.


cargius.pdfMccaferty.pdf

Submit further info and evidence via https://www.popla.org.uk/contactus.htm probably not email though but do email to check they've got it :okay:

M1

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Thanks M1. I will submit that when I get home. I take it I submit the two PDFs along with it?

Cheers,
Marc.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

You don't have to but belt and braces

M1

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Thanks M1, I will attach it. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to e-mail it because the evidence submission on the PoPLA site tells me my verification number is invalid.

One final thing. Am I leaving the "xxxx" in the above?

Cheers,
Marc.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Yes.

M1

[mbaldw]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

THANK YOU M1. eace::rockon:

I received a response from PoPLA and they UPHELD my appeal. Civil Enforcement have to cancel the appeal. I owe you a great debt of thanks for all your help - I genuinely couldn't have done it without you.

Here's the decision, FYI:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


The operator issued parking charge notice number [REMOVED] arising out of the presence at [REMOVED] on 22 October 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark [REMOVED]. The operator recorded that the appellant did not pay for parking in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage and that the appellant’s vehicle was not authorised to be at the site.


The appellant has made various submissions; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the operator has not provided a contract between themselves and the landowner which shows that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into an agreement with motorists in relation to the land. The appellant submits that the operator has no locus-standi.


After reviewing the evidence, I find that the operator has not provided a copy of a contract between themselves and the land owner neither has the operator provided a signed witness statement by the landowner which gives the operator the authority to issue parking charge notices.
Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion the operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices. As the appellant submits that the operator does not have this authority, the burden of proof shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

[wales01man]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

M1 is this non contract an absolute defence for everyone?

[mystery1]

Re: PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

M1 is this non contract an absolute defence for everyone?

I'm surprised they didn't appear to have even tried to negate the point tbh.

M1