Ticket from CEL - won.

[MO22]

Hi

I recently received a parking ticket from Civil Enforcement Ltd for overstaying my displayed ticket time, I received this notice in the post 7 days after the date of parking and replied the same day using the email address stated on their website appealing the charge. Now 9 days later I have had no acknowledgement despite requesting a delivery and read receipt of this email. Should I wait and see what happens or take further action.

Cheers

MO

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Wait. As long as the email doesn't bounce, mailer daemon, then you can be pretty safe in the knowledge they got it.

M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Hi

I have now received CEL letter of response

As expected they have advised unable to cancel the notice

They have given what seems their usual response about severe problems with unauthorised parking, resulting in vehicles being parked for long periods of time occupying valuable space and that there are many clear and visible signs displayed on site advising of regulations in force.

They seem to accept that one of the two machines wasn't working but have not responded about my lost money in it.

My vehicle was parked for 1/2 an hour over the two hour displayed ticket, I however had already lost money in a ticket machine that was not working which would have taken me well over three hours. They have given me a popla verification code.

what should I do next

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...cement-ltd-pcn

That's an example of an appeal for a paid car park that i did. Either edit to suit or supply some info and i can do it for you.

M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Hi M1

Would love your assistance on this one below are some details:

On arriving at the location and parking I immediately went to purchase a ticket, there are two machines at the location and I knew that I would need 3 hours for parking for my visit. Upon trying the first machine I placed 50 pence in the machine which did not register or indeed return to me or issue a ticket.

On using the second machine I attempted to insert numerous coins most of which failed to accept but on this occasion did at least return. Eventually after about 4 minutes of trying (evidenced by the time on the notice compared to the time on the ticket) I managed to get two 20 pence pieces to accept and took the ticket issued.

Parking on site was 20p per hour for the first four hours, therefore I had paid enough into the parking machines for over 4 hours despite only being able to obtain a ticket for 2 hours.

My appeal was based around:
I had actually paid 90 pence for my parking on the day.
The ticket machines were not operating appropriately at the time
I made an honest attempt to obtain an appropriate ticket to display.

Response from CEL said "The ticket was issued for exceeding the 2 hours parking time paid for" & "We have checked our records and one of the two payment machines was fully operational on the day" No mention of my lost money in the machine not working.

i have photos of the notices on site which seem ample in quantity, should you need anymore info to assist me please let me know and indeed how best to send the info.

Yours in anticipation

MO22

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Pics of signs would be good. Also the notices and appeal to see whether keeper liability is in play and if they have complied with the rules for it.

M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

How do I post the pics

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnPAhAdxZQ

M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

My Appeal


Civil Enforcement Ltd
Horton House
Exchange Flags
Liverpool L2 3PF
Dear Sir or Madam,

PCN No:
Vehicle registration number:
I received a parking charge notice today ticket dated 20.03.2015 for an incident dating 14.03.2015, but I believe there are mitigating circumstances to explain why I had parked for longer than the parking ticket that I managed to obtain on the day and I would like to submit an appeal for the following reasons:
On arriving at the location and parking I immediately went to purchase a ticket, there are two machines at the location and I knew that I would need 3 hours for parking for my visit. Upon trying the first machine I placed 50 pence in the machine which did not register or indeed return to me or issue a ticket. Someone then pointed out to me that the machine was out of order.
On using the second machine I attempted to insert numerous coins most of which failed to accept but on this occasion did at least return. Eventually after about 4 minutes of trying (evidenced by the time on your notice compared to the time on the ticket I have attached) I managed to get two 20 pence pieces to accept and took the ticket issued, but as I was due to play in a league football match at the location I had no more time to go and find more change without missing the start of the match.
I am therefore requesting that the fine be waived on the following basis:
· I had actually paid 90 pence for my parking on the day.
· The ticket machines were not operating appropriately at the time
· I made an honest attempt to obtain an appropriate ticket to display.


I am a law abiding citizen who always pays for parking where required and did so on this occasion and made reasonable attempt to obtain a satisfactory ticket for the time of parking.

Yours faithfully,

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

You have effectively named the driver so any challenge based on keeper liability failures is out.


I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.




1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.


2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.


3. Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.


4. CEL have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.



1.The charges are penalties.


The charges are represented as a breach of contract. Whilst it is disputed that a contract was entered into (see point 2) according to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"


£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was entitled to be in having paid 90p which more than covered the time spent on site.. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense. CEL want to charge a motorist who paid for more than adequate parking time and used less than was paid for. There was no loss and certainly can be no genuine pre estimate of loss. It is noted that the operator claims only 40p has registered and this allowed only 2 hours and that the operator has apparently made no checks on the machines or any effort to return the money paid which has all the hall marks of theft since they are saying that the driver has not paid enough. What happened to the other 50p ? Do thy not balance the cash in the machines with the total time issued to drivers ?

I require CEL to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. CELcannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.


According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''


In Parking Eye v Beavis it was found that the charges were penalties although specific to that car park they were commercially Justifiable which clearly can't be in the case or trespass. DDJ Mahy found in Parking Eye v Cargius that commercial justification such as in Beavis did not apply to a paid car park


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. If it is dark it is not good enough for signs just to be present, they must be able to be seen. As per 1 above i contend there were no signs at entry and nothing that said payment must be made within 10 minutes.




3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
CEL do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that CEL has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow CEL to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.


In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between CEL and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de2...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1


In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'


I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. CEL cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.


I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.


It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.


5. ANPR ACCURACY


This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.


So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the CEL system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.




M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Many thanks M1

2 quick questions

does point 2 unclear signage apply - as the signs do say you can pay at anytime during your stay and this isnt a free car park.

Should I send this appeal back to CEL or is it destined for POPLA

[mystery1]

Re: Ticket from CEL

It's a wee bit sketchy but leave it in as it won't do any harm.

Popla. https://www.popla.org.uk/appeal.htm

M1

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Sorry - is this to go back to cel

- - - Updated - - -

Forget that didn't look at link

cheers

[MO22]

Re: Ticket from CEL

Hi M1

Having lodged my appeal to POPLA, i have now received an email from Alexandra Wilson
Creative Parking Solutions Plc
33/35 Daws Lane, London NW7 4SD

NOT Civil Enforcement Ltd

There are 39 pages of case history, photos and resonse, but still no mention of my lost money in the 1st pay machine.

Do I wait for the POPLA decision due on or after 13th May or do I need to send anything else.

Many thanks

MO