CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale. -won

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Precisely.

It's pretty well explained in the link i gave you http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...a-process.html

M1

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Thank you I read through that as you replied! All sent now as "I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking" so fingers crossed. Thank you for your help it is greatly appreciated.

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

CE have now added their case as1. There are many clear and visible signs displayed in the car park advising drivers of the terms and conditions applicable when parking in the car park. Drivers are permitted to park in the car park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. These signs constitute an offer by us to enter into a contract with the drivers. 2. Our ANPR cameras recorded the Appellant’s vehicle, registration number in the car park during the times shown on the front summary sheet of this appeal. 3. There is more than adequate signage in the car park, as can be seen from the attached site plan. Furthermore, the car park has sufficient lighting and warnings for the Appellant to have acknowledged the signs, and which the Appellant accepted by their actions. 4. We refer you to the Court of Appeal authority of Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169 which states: “the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning”. 5. The nature of the relationship between the Appellant and our company is contractual. The car park is private land and consequently drivers require permission before parking on the land. The Company granted permission by way of making an offer in the signs displayed in the car parks and the Appellant accepted that offer and the terms set out on the signs by their conduct in parking on the land. 6. As previously stated, there was ample signage throughout the site, such that the Appellant had an opportunity to read them, including signage at the entrance to the car park. 7. The British Parking Association advises all motorists: “Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.” 8. When parking on private land a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking, in return for permission to park. Therefore, the onus was on the Appellant to ensure that they could abide by any clearly displayed conditions. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Our Charges 9. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant the BPA code. 10. The Supreme Court, in their judgment of the recent Parking Eye v Beavis appeal, stated that: “…the charge does not contravene the penalty rule, or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.” 11. We submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the Contract. Furthermore, Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption asserted the following in the above Supreme Court judgment: “Any imbalance in the parties’ rights did not arise ‘contrary to the requirements of good faith’, because ParkingEye and the owners had a legitimate interest in inducing Mr Beavis not to overstay in order to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets.” It would therefore be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimation of loss. Additional Notes 1. The Appellant does not dispute parking the vehicle during the times stated on the PCN. 2. The car park in question is private property and all vehicles wishing to use the site must pay using either the Phone & Pay Service or our Payment Machines 3. The PCN sent to the Appellant states the reason for the PCN was “Payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on the signage” 4. The Appellant does not claim to have made payment. 5. In the Appellants letter to the Operator the Appellant solely disputes the Parking Charge on the basis the PCN was served more than 14-days after the day of the parking and attempts to rely on POFA. • The Appellant reference to POFA is misguided as the Operator has not applied and / or relied on POFA. • The Operator issued the Appellant with a Non-POFA PCN • Section 21.6 and 21.7 of the BPA Code states that the The Operator has up to 28-days to apply to the DVLA, once obtained, the Operator has 14-days to send the PCN • The Operator confirms that the PCN was sent within 14-days of receiving the information from the DVLA • In the Appellant Appeal to POPLA he raises 3 issues (a) Keeper Liability (b) No Standing and (c) Signage • We have already dealt with POFA / Keeper Liability above. • Please find attached proof of standing. We would also refer to assessor the Beavis. • Furthermore our charge of £100.00 is in accordance with BPA guidelines • As dealt with above (and attached) our signs are clear and visible.

Do I need to add any comments on to this ?

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Did they supply a contract or bull$hit letter of authority ?

M!

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

I haven't received anything in the post yet I just noticed this in my emails from Wednesday but this seems to be the only text they sumbitted

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

No signs or other evidence were supplied to myself other than a statement via email. No signs were attached.

Keeper liability cannot apply with PoFA 2012 schedule 4 compliance. The operator admits they did not comply. There is no evidence of who was driving.


There is no evidence of compliance with the code of practice #7.

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent). The written confirmation must be given before
you can start operating on the land in question and
give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car
park management for the site that you are responsible
for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their
appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code
of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue
outstanding parking charges.
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they
have the written authority of the landowner (or their
appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours
of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles
that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and
enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement




As this information is nowhere to be found there is no evidence of authority and the appeal must be allowed.


M1

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

I have located an email now with multiple documents attached, one beinga picture of the car park and where the signs are marked including a picture of a white car where I was parked but this is not my car in the photo, one titled beavis supreme court, one of all our correspondence and one a
Statuary decloration signed by CE solicitor

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Have you filed the response i suggested ? If not let me se it all apart from Beavis.

M1

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

I haven't as I was away for the weekend so was waiting to check mondays post after work however I can't seem to find how to add attachments on here I shall email to query this now

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Either go advanced and use the paperclip,

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

Or email using the details in my signature.

M1

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Sorry about that it wasn't giving me the option on my mobile phone, these are the doc's attached. and the case summary which I can also add which is the cover letter, the points I pasted in the previous post and the correspondence between us both (original notice slip etc).

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as today is the last day to submit my comments thank you [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION]

[mystery1]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as today is the last day to submit my comments thank you @mystery1

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

No signs or other evidence were supplied to myself other than a statement via email. No signs were attached.

Keeper liability cannot apply with PoFA 2012 schedule 4 compliance. The operator admits they did not comply. There is no evidence of who was driving.


There is no evidence of compliance with the code of practice #7.

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying
out parking management, you must have the written
authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed
agent). The written confirmation must be given before
you can start operating on the land in question and
give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car
park management for the site that you are responsible
for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their
appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code
of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue
outstanding parking charges.
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any
outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they
have the written authority of the landowner (or their
appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that
the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours
of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles
that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and
enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the
agreement




As this information is nowhere to be found there is no evidence of authority and the appeal must be allowed.


M1

As well as the above :-

The operator has a statutory decleration from Michael Schwartz that the operator has authority to pursue outstanding parking charge notices in accordance with the British parking association approved operator scheme code of practice.

The code of practice states @19.5 "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to payis for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We
would not expect this amount to be more than £100."

The sign submitted states a charge of £150, a sum which they have no authority to charge.

M1

[JaySanctuary]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Thank you I just tried to submit that but it only allows 2000 letters so misses the bottom paragraphs is there anything I could take out without causing detriment?

[Kati]

Re: CEL PCN outside 14 day timescale.

Thank you I just tried to submit that but it only allows 2000 letters so misses the bottom paragraphs is there anything I could take out without causing detriment?

can you attach it as a pdf??