Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: C_H_R_I_S on February 06, 2024, 04:27:24 pm
-
Thanks but For the stress and uncertainty im afraid they win this time.
If I heard y'all saying I had a great case I wouldve fought but for now their business wins :/
-
It's just an intimidation tactic by them. Ignore that.
-
They don't strictly claim that 83% of POPLA appeals fail. They claim that 83% of POPLA appeals involving CEL fail.
The figures in the report do, however, state 83% of appeals received or 25% of those decided. It appears about 35% get withdrawn.
-
You now have two choices:
1. Pay the original reduced charge within 14 days beginning with the date of this letter, after which the
PCN charge will revert to the original charge detailed on the PCN. To make a payment at the lower rate
please visit www.ce-service.co.uk or call 0115 822 5020.
2. If you are not satisfied with our decision, you may appeal to the Independent Appeals Service
(POPLA) via www.popla.co.uk using verification code 1410464204 within 28 days from the date on
this letter. However, if you decide to appeal to POPLA, the reduced rate will no longer be available and
the full charge will apply if the appeal is not upheld in your favour. According to the latest data
published by POPLA, which you can view at www.popla.co.uk/reports, between 1 October 2021 to 30
September 2022, POPLA decided in favour of Civil Enforcement Limited and upheld the validity of the
PCN in 83% of contested cases.
You must now either pay the outstanding amount or appeal to POPLA but you cannot do both. If you do
not choose either of the options above, we will seek to recover the outstanding sum by referring your
case to a third-party debt recovery agent and may commence court action against you. This may incur
additional costs for which you may be liable.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute
resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal (www.ombudsman-services.org/).
However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. Should you
wish to appeal further you must do so to POPLA, as explained above
-
Hence why I would be interested in C_H_R_I_S sharing a redacted copy of the correspondence claiming this (an aside to any appeal, I appreciate)
-
They rejected the appeal stating that there were signs that included ANPR warnings and that 83% of POPLA appeals lose.
Just to show you how deceitful the CEL scammers are, here is POPLA's own figures about how many appeals to POPLA are successful (2021)... 41%. So that would make CELs claim that only 17% "win" more akin to a deliberate lie in order to get you to capitulate and pay into their scam.
https://www.popla.co.uk/news/nearly-1-in-2-motorists-who-appeal-to-popla-get-parking-charge-cancelled
In fact in their 2022 annual report, they say that compared to 2021, 45% of appeals were successful which is an increase of 8%. (34,635 out of 76,292 appeals)
https://issuu.com/ombudsman-services1/docs/popla_annual_report_2022
-
You are dealing with an unregulated private parking company formed by a bunch of ex-clamper scammers who rely on low hanging fruit on the gullible tree for their income. The decision whether to pay or to fight is down to you.
You now have an opportunity to appeal to POPLA. Even if you lose at POPLA, the fight is not necessarily over. A POPLA decision is not binding and has no bearing on a Plan D court hearing where a judge would ultimately decide whether you owe CEL a debt or not.
Did they offer you the bribe discounted sum when they rejected your Plan B appeal? Offering to pay them £57 will not be accepted by them.
Here are a few suggestions that should be included in your POPLA appeal if you decide to fight this:
Your POPLA appeal will focus on issues with the signage. It is apparent from your original post that you were not made aware of the terms of parking due to deficiencies with the signage. You will put CEL to strict proof that any signs were prominent, conspicuous, written in intelligible language, easy to read, see and understand. There must be adequate notice of the sum charged and that it was brought to the attention of the driver as required by PoFA. In this case the sum of the charge is in a much smaller font to the information that precedes it. (on a sign that you did not notice until later)
You said that when entering the location, on one side is free parking and on the other it is controlled by CEL. You need to put CEL to strict proof that the signage on entry complies to the BPA CoP and that it is not possible to mistakenly park where you did, only realising later that you were in the controlled side of the car park.
Their use of ANPR is hidden in the small print of the sign you showed us. It is not transparent. They should have conspicuous notification, preferably by use of a logo and prominent wording that ANPR technology is in use as per the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s Code of Practice. Also, the ICO has guidelines on ANPR use that states that there must be "clear and prominent signage in place to inform individuals that ANPR is in use, with sufficient detail about who to contact if they have a query". The sign we have seen fails that requirement.
BPA CoP v8 S22.1 (at time of event) "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for".
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf
You will put CEL to strict proof, if they are not the landowner, to provide evidence of an unredacted contract with or flowing from the landowner that clearly indicates the land enforcement boundary they are authorised to operate. Also, you require CEL to provide evidence that the landowner authorises them to issue parking charges in their own name.
It cannot be assumed, just because CEL is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that they are authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the issue in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case you should suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Edited to add: Are the images in the NtK time stamped? It is difficult to see. If they are not, then there is an extra point you can use in your POPLA appeal.
-
Civil Enforcement were never going to accept your appeal, they don't make any money from accepting appeals. Whether to take it further is your choice.
Can you show us the part where they claim 83% of POPLA appeals fail?
-
They rejected the appeal stating that there were signs that included ANPR warnings and that 83% of POPLA appeals lose.
So I think I should just pay the £60...
Tempted to pay £57 fine as I already paid £3 for parking...
THEIR RESPONSE:
Signs in the above car park clearly advise payment for parking must be made within 20 minutes of
arrival and on this occasion you failed to do so.
There are many clear and visible signs displayed on the site advising drivers of the regulations in force
and we maintain a continuous log confirming that the signage remains in place.
It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they adhere to the parking terms.
The charge that has been levied is clearly stated on the signage around the site. Furthermore, it falls
within the British Parking Association's recommended guidelines for car park enforcement.
The signs displayed throughout the car park do comply with the GDPR regulation and clearly state ''We
use manual patrols and ANPR cameras to monitor this private property and may contact DVLA to
request the Registered Keeper's details
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.
18890732519
The signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they simply must be
placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice,
p9.2, and see also BPA Code of Practice, 19.3).
-
Thanks for all your help.
I used the shotgun approach as all my photos are from google maps (the location is hours away from me).
So I am just hoping the weight of points has an effect :)
IF this fails at first appeal, they say using POPLA means you will have to pay the full £100 fine.
Do you think I can win at POPLA?
-
In the wacky world of POPLA it is tactically advantageous to raise points without supporting evidence, provided you're not in possession of evidence which actually disproves your point.
But the OP is, they posted a clear photo of a sign stating the use of ANPR in its Ts and Cs. Also, I suspect that the OP actually thinks they've got substantive defence grounds and that they're not simply setting out a smorgasbord of matters which might have no merit in the hope that something might strike a chord with POPLA.
And as regards the shotgun approach, IMO it is not necessary to assert matters on which an appellant has no info. There is nothing wrong with an opening statement to the effect that the assessor will of course want to satisfy themselves (prior to considering the specific issues in this case) that the BPA CoP pre-conditions of compliance have been met by the Operator, paras. 7, 14 and 19 CoP* apply.
A simple but IMO comprehensive (other paras. can be added) intro which creates the opportunity to examine the operator's evidence once submitted.
*- version which applied at the time, but may have changed in the Feb. 2024 version.
-
...ANPR Camera Transparency: The use of ANPR cameras was not clearly signposted, failing to meet the BPA Code's clear signage requirements
And every other point which is not supported by evidence. CEL are not going to do your work for you: if you wish to assert then you must have evidence in support IMO.
In the wacky world of POPLA it is tactically advantageous to raise points without supporting evidence, provided you're not in possession of evidence which actually disproves your point. This is because after you lodge your appeal, the operator will lodge their evidence and arguments and you will be given an opportunity to comment on the operator's evidence and arguments. POPLA will not consider any new points raised by you at this stage, but they will allow you to elaborate, in light of the operator's own evidence, on points you raised without evidence in the appeal. So you can say something like the following in the appeal in order to keep your options open:
The operator has not proved that it owns the relevant land or was authorised at the time of the alleged parking event to issue and enforce parking charges and the operator has not proved that its signage was in conformity with the BPA AOS Code of practice. The appellant reserves the right to elaborate on these points in light of any evidence and arguments put forward by the operator.
-
...ANPR Camera Transparency: The use of ANPR cameras was not clearly signposted, failing to meet the BPA Code's clear signage requirements
And the evidence is?
A sign posted by the OP stating '...CEL monitor compliance with these terms and conditions using ANPR...'
The BPA CoP which states at 22.1 ANPR that..
..your signs must tell drivers you are using this technology and what you will use the data ...for'
So what's the basis of this claim in the appeal?
And every other point which is not supported by evidence. CEL are not going to do your work for you: if you wish to assert then you must have evidence in support IMO.
-
Dear Adjudicator,
I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice issued to me for an alleged breach of parking terms on 28/1/24 at N12 0QZ.
Upon review, I identified several discrepancies that, in my view, invalidate this charge due to non-compliance with the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice, and the fairness principles outlined by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). To further strengthen my case, I will also reference the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), highlighting violations of this legislation to underscore the legal deficiencies in the parking charge imposed.
Discrepancies Identified:
Absence of Entry Signage: No signage was visible upon entry into the car park, a clear contravention of the BPA Code which mandates visible terms and conditions upon entry. This oversight directly violates the BPA Code and CRA 2015, Section 62(4), compromising my ability to be informed of the parking terms before deciding to park.
Signage Obscured by Parked Vehicles: The signs present were affixed to the back of a fence and not visible, especially when obscured by parked cars. This placement fails to comply with the BPA Code's visibility and legibility requirements (Section 18) and contradicts the transparency obligations under CRA 2015, Section 62(4).
Unreasonable Time Limits: The requirement to make payment within 20 minutes is excessively restrictive, providing insufficient time to understand the obscured terms and conditions. This practice likely violates Section 19 of the BPA Code and does not meet the fairness criteria under CRA 2015, Section 65.
ANPR Camera Transparency: The use of ANPR cameras was not clearly signposted, failing to meet the BPA Code's clear signage requirements and questioning the fairness of data collection practices under CRA 2015, Section 62(5).
Unenforceable Penalty Without Commercial Justification: The condition to pay for parking within 20 minutes of arrival, leading to a penalty, lacks commercial justification. This charge is not supported by the Supreme Court decision in the Beavis case, as it offers no legitimate business interest protection, given that payment was made in full, with no overstay and the correct VRM entered.
Given these points, I contend that the parking charge was issued under conditions that fail to meet the BPA's standards for clear and fair parking management and contravene the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The lack of entry signage and obscured sign placement significantly impaired my ability to understand and adhere to the parking conditions.
I respectfully request the cancellation of this charge, supported by enclosed photos of the car park signage and confirmation of my parking payment on the day in question.
Please acknowledge receipt of this appeal and provide a reference number. I anticipate a favorable resolution and the cancellation of the PCN.
Yours sincerely,
-
Thankyou Guys these are great points.. This is my first private appeal so feels a bit like a lost cause but i'm drafting an appeal now with your help.
-
Maybe something like this on the commercial justification point?
The term the operator is seeking to invoke is for failing to pay for parking within 20 minutes of arrival. Payment was made in full, there was no overstay and the correct VRM was entered. The parking charge is therefore an unenforceable penalty that is not saved by the Supreme Court decision in the Beavis case as there is no commercial justification for imposing a time limit for payment that expires before the end of the period of parking.
-
Rightly or wrongly, POPLA are probably more likely to pay attention to appeal points based on non compliance with the BPA's Code of Practice, than ones about the Consumer Rights Act, so I'd be tempted to lead with any Code of Practice points at POPLA.
Whatever wording you do use, if you're making the point about the charge not being commercially justified, it's important that this is loud and clear, and doesn't get lost in amongst points around the lack of clarity around their use of ANPR etc.
-
There's no harm in quoting it. However, it will depend on which assessor you get at POPLA. It could be the tea-boy. Who knows?
In theory, POPLA should take the CRA into account but it will also depend any other legal or CoP arguments you can bring to bear. Don't forget that any POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant. It is only binding on the operator.
If it ever went as far as a county court claim, then the CRA must be taken into account. We are a long way off anything like that.
You must put as many points as you can into a POPLA appeal as each point must be rebutted by the operator. They must rebut ALL points raised. You only have two win on one point.
Signage is always argued. Any breaches of the BPA CoP, PoFA if keeper liability is denied, contractual right of the operator to issue PCNs and any rights to make a claim and so on.
-
Is it possible to go back to the location and get some photos of the entrance signs, if any and any signage that directs the driver to either the free parking or the paid parking areas? Also, any general overview of the parking area.
They are trying to rely on the term on their sign that states "Payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving on the premises". You made payment after that period.
However, as @andy_foster has pointed out, you are being penalised even though you paid for the parking in good faith. That is a breach of the CRA 2015.
In fact, there are so many breaches of there CRA that you should be making the PPC aware of their multiple breaches such as:
- Transparency: The terms of the agreement, including any penalties, must be clear and easily understandable to the consumer before they agree to the service. If the penalty for certain actions, such as overstaying in a car park monitored by ANPR cameras is not clearly communicated, it could be deemed unfair.
- Proportionality: The penalty imposed should be proportionate to the breach of the agreement. If the penalty for a minor infraction is disproportionately high, it may be considered unfair under CRA.
- Good faith: Service providers are expected to act in good faith and treat consumers fairly. If the penalty is imposed in a way that exploits consumers or is not justified by legitimate reasons, it may be deemed unfair.
If the mention of monitoring by ANPR cameras is hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, it raises serious concerns regarding transparency. Transparency is a fundamental principle of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumers must be provided with clear and easily understandable information about the terms and conditions of the agreement, including any monitoring methods and potential penalties. Which, in this case, it is not.
These sections of the CRA apply:
- Section 62 - Transparency of Terms: This section requires that contract terms be transparent and easy to understand. If terms related to monitoring by ANPR cameras or penalties are not clearly disclosed, it may be a breach of this provision.
- Section 62(1) - Requirement for Transparency: This subsection states that a term is transparent if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. If terms related to monitoring or penalties are hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, they may not meet this requirement.
- Section 62(4) - Prominence of Terms: This subsection emphasizes that terms that may be deemed unfair should be brought to the consumer's attention in a way that is prominent and transparent. If terms related to ANPR monitoring or penalties are buried in the fine print, they may not meet this standard.
- Section 62(5) - Assessment of Transparency: This subsection provides factors to consider when assessing transparency, including the clarity of the term, the legibility of the language used, and the presentation of the term. Failure to meet these factors could indicate a lack of transparency.
- Section 64 - Requirement for Fairness: This section requires that contract terms be fair. If penalties imposed based on undisclosed terms related to ANPR monitoring are considered unfair, they may be deemed unenforceable under this provision.
- Section 65 - Assessment of Fairness: This section provides factors to consider when assessing the fairness of contract terms, including the nature of the subject matter, the circumstances at the time of making the contract, and the interests of both parties. If the penalty imposed is found to be unfair based on these factors, it may not be enforceable under this provision.
- Section 68 - Exclusion and Restrictions of Liability: This section deals with terms that attempt to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract. If a term attempts to exclude or restrict liability for breach related to ANPR monitoring or penalties, it may be subject to scrutiny under this provision.
Thankyou @b789
Do you think me quoting this would suffice as an appeal in itself?
Maybe with the addition of the images of the terrible signage?
Cheers
Chris
-
Please see the PM I've sent you and take the necessary remedial action ASAP
Hi,
Thanks I tried to edit but see no option to do so!
-
Is it possible to go back to the location and get some photos of the entrance signs, if any and any signage that directs the driver to either the free parking or the paid parking areas? Also, any general overview of the parking area.
They are trying to rely on the term on their sign that states "Payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving on the premises". You made payment after that period.
However, as @andy_foster has pointed out, you are being penalised even though you paid for the parking in good faith. That is a breach of the CRA 2015.
In fact, there are so many breaches of there CRA that you should be making the PPC aware of their multiple breaches such as:
- Transparency: The terms of the agreement, including any penalties, must be clear and easily understandable to the consumer before they agree to the service. If the penalty for certain actions, such as overstaying in a car park monitored by ANPR cameras is not clearly communicated, it could be deemed unfair.
- Proportionality: The penalty imposed should be proportionate to the breach of the agreement. If the penalty for a minor infraction is disproportionately high, it may be considered unfair under CRA.
- Good faith: Service providers are expected to act in good faith and treat consumers fairly. If the penalty is imposed in a way that exploits consumers or is not justified by legitimate reasons, it may be deemed unfair.
If the mention of monitoring by ANPR cameras is hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, it raises serious concerns regarding transparency. Transparency is a fundamental principle of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consumers must be provided with clear and easily understandable information about the terms and conditions of the agreement, including any monitoring methods and potential penalties. Which, in this case, it is not.
These sections of the CRA apply:
- Section 62 - Transparency of Terms: This section requires that contract terms be transparent and easy to understand. If terms related to monitoring by ANPR cameras or penalties are not clearly disclosed, it may be a breach of this provision.
- Section 62(1) - Requirement for Transparency: This subsection states that a term is transparent if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible. If terms related to monitoring or penalties are hidden in minuscule print or not prominently displayed, they may not meet this requirement.
- Section 62(4) - Prominence of Terms: This subsection emphasizes that terms that may be deemed unfair should be brought to the consumer's attention in a way that is prominent and transparent. If terms related to ANPR monitoring or penalties are buried in the fine print, they may not meet this standard.
- Section 62(5) - Assessment of Transparency: This subsection provides factors to consider when assessing transparency, including the clarity of the term, the legibility of the language used, and the presentation of the term. Failure to meet these factors could indicate a lack of transparency.
- Section 64 - Requirement for Fairness: This section requires that contract terms be fair. If penalties imposed based on undisclosed terms related to ANPR monitoring are considered unfair, they may be deemed unenforceable under this provision.
- Section 65 - Assessment of Fairness: This section provides factors to consider when assessing the fairness of contract terms, including the nature of the subject matter, the circumstances at the time of making the contract, and the interests of both parties. If the penalty imposed is found to be unfair based on these factors, it may not be enforceable under this provision.
- Section 68 - Exclusion and Restrictions of Liability: This section deals with terms that attempt to exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract. If a term attempts to exclude or restrict liability for breach related to ANPR monitoring or penalties, it may be subject to scrutiny under this provision.
-
Please see the PM I've sent you and take the necessary remedial action ASAP
-
It will now depend on how badly you want to fight this. We'd have to see more evidence of the signage at the site. However, if it was not obvious when you entered the car park that you were entering private land with parking controls due to deficient signage, you have a case.
What brought to your attention the fact, after approx 30 minutes, that you had parked in a car park with a requirement to pay as opposed to being able to park in a free to use car park if you had turned right instead of left when you entered the private land?
Unfortunately the place is hours from me.
The signage definetly wasnt clear (TO me - or those in the car with me)
Sounds like i am gonna lose my parking ticket and this penalty...
These private companies are ridiculous
-
The signage that I spotted was on teh restuarant door saying
-> FreeParking
<- Paid Parking
At first it didnt click for me but when I went to my car to get something I realised then.
THe signs were not very clear to me...
I am referring to the 20minutes timer as how they are getting me.
And yes I paid by phone/
-
The £100 penalty is clearly a penalty in all but name (bears no relation to any conceivable loss) - so can only be saved by "commercial justification".
If the car park is enforced solely by ANPR, then the entirely arbitrary requirement to pay within 20 minutes would seem to be nothing but a cynical trap for the unwary, and entirely contrary to the "service provider's" legal duty to treat consumers fairly and act in good faith.
Signage should always be the starting point though.
-
It will now depend on how badly you want to fight this. We'd have to see more evidence of the signage at the site. However, if it was not obvious when you entered the car park that you were entering private land with parking controls due to deficient signage, you have a case.
What brought to your attention the fact, after approx 30 minutes, that you had parked in a car park with a requirement to pay as opposed to being able to park in a free to use car park if you had turned right instead of left when you entered the private land?
-
The images in GSV are from April 2022. Are you sure the signage hasn't changed or been updated since then? Can you go back to the location and get some photos of the signs and some general overviews? Where were you parked in relation to the sign you have shown us?
When you say "on the left is private car park and on the right is free parking" it is not exactly clear what you mean. In any case, it is private land. Are you stating that there is signage at the entrance to parking are you have shown us that splits the car park into two separate areas?
In the GSV there are no obvious signs, either at the entrance or within the parking area that conform to either ATAs CoP on signage.
What evidence do you have that you paid? Did you have to enter your VRN but maybe entered it incorrectly or with one or two digits incorrect or, for example, use an 'O' instead of a '0'? Did you pay by app or phone?
Without seeing the actual signage and knowing how you paid, it is difficult to provide advice.
Edited to add: Based on the NtK, you were at the location for 31 minutes. One of the terms on the sign, in tiny print, is that payment must be made within 20 minutes of arriving at the location. That is probably the term that are trying get you on.
-
LOCATION:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6051622,-0.1746622,3a,75y,53.64h,87.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYiS0NuHDDS_flp-QBoGZVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
---------------
On the left is a private car park.
On the right is free parking.
You can see small signs on the fence sayings its private but it really wasnt obvious to me especially with other cars parked infront of some of the signs.
So it wasnt the clearest signage.
Either way when I realised it was a private car park I quickly moved my car and then angrily paid the money to cover the cost I wouldve paid if I wanted to park there for that time.
Still 2 weeks later I get a letter in the post saying I didnt pay/ didnt pay in time.
Here are the images:
(https://i.ibb.co/1K38pGb/IMG-7649.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/C0nS1CF/IMG-7650.jpg)
Sign:
(https://i.ibb.co/CWgvpbS/IMG-7616.jpg)
SO basically I paid for parking later then they stated I should but this was also due to (phone malfunction... etc)
Is this reasonable grounds for appeal?
Cheers!