CEL ANPR PCN - Appealed - PAPLOC now Claimform - Paid did not enter reg - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW

[dx100uk]

Where have you got the idea any debt can have bailiff s involved before you've lost in court????lll

 

you paid, just because their stupid system shows an extra mystery payment and your reg not having paid, is not your problem!!

 

there are numerous wrong or missing reg number threads here already

none have ever gone to court and even if yours did they would have to disclose their data that will prove them wrong or they lose anyway.

 

 

[FTMDave]

dx is spot on.

 

Try to think things through tactically & legally.

 

If bailiffs could be involved just 'cos someone reckoned someone owed them money, then a person who'd you'd had a row with would send the bailiffs to you, you'd send the bailiffs round to them, you'd be sending the bailiffs to Morrisons and CEL right now, etc.

 

Bailiffs exist to enforce court decisions.  For the bailiffs to turn up CEL would have to

   - send you a formal Letter Before Claim

   - issue court proceedings

   - win a court case against you

and then you would have to refuse to obey the court decision to pay.  Even then the amount involved would have to be over a certain sum.  You're nowhere near step one yet!

 

The legal position is clear.  You paid.  CEL suffered no loss.  You're in the right.  If CEL were so stupid as to take you to court you'd hammer them.

 

About Morrisons and the car park.  Is this just a normal supermarket car park or is there something I'm missing about who it belongs to?

[lookinforinfo]

There is no way you are royally stuffed.

There is no chance you would lose in Court if they were stupid enough to go there. 

 

As far as I can see ABC parking do not belong to either the BPA or IPC and none of their signs there carry either's logo.

As CEL are acting as enforcement, they are in breach of BPA CoP since it states quite clearly that members cannot apply to the DVLA for motorist data from non members. And by doing so additionally it follows that CEL have obtained your data unlawfully-a GDPR breach.

 

Also you paid.

Not inserting your reg. no is a secondary consideration , so as per parking Eye v Beavis charging you £100 is a penalty and so unenforceable.

 

I know I have that in an earlier post, but it is the case and no Court would find in favour CEL and that don't even have a contract with the land owner.

 

You do not owe a penny so pay them nothing.

[yewneik]

Thanks very much lookinforinfo, good to hear a bit of good news.

 

My only question is how to proceed now.

I've chased up the DVLA so will see what comes from that.

 

In the meantime, should I follow back up with CEL, firstly requesting their CCTV footage of that day under my GDPR rights. Then stating that their entry way signage did not include their terms and conditions, thus nullifying any 'contract' I would have entered with them. Lastly sending them the image of the parking meter with excluded any of their terms and conditions at point of purchase.

 

We can then see where we end up, saving the GDPR breach, lack of planning permission for their signage and cameras and penalty being unenforceable for if they attempt to escalate the charge.

 

Again you've all been a big help and I really appreciate your time.

[dx100uk]

no yours is NOT the next move with regard toward CEL.

 

no you most certainly DO NOT enter into ANY pointless letter tennis with them or ANY of their wolves until or unless you receive a letter of claim...as detailed in post 19.

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

The next step is to sit on your backside!  The chancers are sending you threats for money you don't owe.  Sit back, relax, and ignore the paper tigers.

 

But don't ignore a Letter Before Claim.

[yewneik]

Perfect, make a lovely file of future origami fodder until or if a Letter Before Claim arrives.

 

At which point it's time to get my legal ducks in a row.

[brassnecked]

Soon as they send a Letter of Claim, come back and update thge thread with what the muppets are asking for.

[yewneik]

For reference, this is what the appeal through POPLA came back with:

 

Decision Unsuccessful

 

Assessor Name xxx

 

Assessor summary of operator case The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to make payment.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach.

He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store.

He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached.

The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states: “PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE. 1 HOUR £2.00…If you do not obtain a valid permit you must pay within 10 minutes of arrival and provide your full, exact registration number when making your payment…If you breach any of these terms you will be charged £100”.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, entering the car park at 12:20, and exiting at 12:49, totalling a stay of 28 minutes.

The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate that the appellant did not pay to park.

The appellant explains that he did purchase a parking ticket on the day of the breach.

He states the payment machine did not request a vehicle registration (VRM) so he did not enter one but did pay and redeem it inside the store.

He states that the operator will be able to see that a ticket was purchased at the time he was on site, without a VRM attached.

The appellant adds that CCTV will demonstrate he purchased parking time and his bank statement demonstrates he purchased goods inside the store.

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and do believe that the appellant purchased parking time, but it is evident that he did not enter his VRM.

I appreciate that the payment machine may not have requested this, but it is clear from the signage that it is a requirement when paying to park.

It is clear the appellant was aware that payment was needed to park but failed to read the terms of parking in error.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of signage on site which make the terms of parking clear.

I appreciate the appellant states the signage in the centre of the car park did not stipulate this, but he has provided no evidence to show what the signage in the centre of the car park stated.

The operator has provided images of signage throughout the site, all of which make the terms of parking clear, and the full and correct VRM must be entered when making payment.

The operator has provided a list to demonstrate other motorists followed the terms and entered their vehicle registration via the terminal.

Although I do take the appellants point on board and the operator may be able to locate a vehicle with no VRM entered at the time of the breach, but it is not their responsibility to do so, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms of parking.

I fully accept that CCTV may show the appellant paying to park, but it is the responsibility of the motorist to request this from Morrisons and provide this to POPLA as part of his appeal.

We cannot obtain evidence on behalf of the operator or the appellant.

I note that the appellant has provided a copy of his bank statement which demonstrates he was a legitimate user of the site, but this does not demonstrate that parking time was purchased unfortunately.

Whilst I fully sympathise with the appellant I must advise that POPA’s remit is to assess the validity of the PCN, as the appellant has provided no evidence that parking time was purchased and the operator has provided clear evidence that it is a requirement to enter the VRM when purchasing parking time, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued accordingly.

I have reviewed the operators evidence pack and it has provided images of the appellants vehicle entering and exiting the site.

It has provided images of the signage on site which are clear, legible and evenly spread, this sets out the terms of parking and the PCN amount if the terms are not met.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not comply with the terms and conditions by failing to make payment.

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[brassnecked]

Popla often get it wrong and misinterpret the law in favour of a PPC.  Non entry of VRM is de minimis, so a trifle, paid so no ground for claim

[lookinforinfo]

You have to understand that these tribunals are unlike Courts and heavily biased in favour of the Parking company. For instance it may well have been a fault of the ticket machine that the VRM waas not requested-

which a Court would consider.

 

By appealing too early before you had your ducks in a row, not only did you give away the fact that you were the driver but that you didn't check that there was a contract between you and them.

The tribunal assumed there was.

The lack of planning permission means that there was no contract -so no money owed.

 

So relax and carry on with your life.

The ball is now in their court and it is they who has to decide, given all the things they know about the likelihood of winning or losing in a proper court.

 

Given the fact that your appeal wasn't strong may give them hope that they will win.

If they do, your WS should convince them that they are backing a lost cause. 

[yewneik]

Good stuff, thanks all!

[Homer67]

And this is exactly why you never appeal, they have pointed out that they are now pursuing you as the driver, not the keeper.

 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

 

So your protection under POPLA as the keeper is now removed.

 

It matters not, they still won't win in court as you paid and have evideced that - they have sufferred no loss, what would they claim for?

 

Be prepared for lots and lots (and lots) of threatograms in scary red ink adding unicorn food tax to your ever growing imaginary debt - all meaningless drivel

 

Do nothing unless you get a Letter Before Claim from the PPC not a DCA.

 

[FTMDave]

Was this just a normal supermarket car park?  If so, I'm thinking of a belt & braces approach of ignoring the paper tigers but at the same time getting on to Morrisons head office.

[yewneik]

Also, revisited the carpark today and it appears they have fixed the machine. So you can no longer purchase a ticket without entering a reg number. Very infuriating. But we shall see what comes next.

 

Cheers all.

[lookinforinfo]

Don't forget to include that they have since fixed the fault on the ticket machine

[yewneik]

Update with the notice from the DVLA,

 

The signage in the Car Park states that all claims will be followed up by CEL,

 

am I right in thinking that it's against DVLA rules because CEL are not the Carpark Owner and it's illegal to apply for records for a non member. IE CEL were allowed to get my data, but not to chase it on behalf of the car park?

 

I guess this is the tricky bit, I am up against CEL, and they were wrong to obtain my information as they are not the owner of the carpark?

 

Thanks all!

 

David

CEL_DVLA.pdf

[dx100uk]

did you get onto morrisons?

 

holding the stick the wrong way..if cel are contracted to manage the carpark under koda they are allowed to request your details 

 

 

[yewneik]

Morrisons want nothing to do with it, literally washing their hands of the entire thing.

 

The only thing I have in defence of my claim, is my bank statement showing an £8 transaction in that Morrisons with no further details.

 

Morrisons now have no record of their CCTV or the transaction, as it was too late when I requested it.

 

All the CCTV in the Car Park is owned by the car park. So when claiming in previous appeals the CCTV would show I paid, they know that I don't have that footage, I could request the footage, but will involve getting backing in touch with CEL.

 

Getting a bit antsy as of what to do next.

Would rather this whole thing would go away, but it from other forums it does sound like CEL are cantankerous.

And it would go to a game of who would show up in court.

I'm just not sure a bank statement is enough?

 

All the best,

 

DM

 

 

[dx100uk]

so you've received a letter of claim from CEL?

 

dx

 

[yewneik]

...no, but I guess I am pre-empting. If I do receive a 'letter of claim', this is the information I have on my side.

 

If I do receive a Letter of Claim, will I be liable for the Unicorn Tax, as a previous poster so wonderfully put it. Or will I only be held for the £100 fine?

 

I'm just getting the fear I guess, while I know that I am in the right, I'm just getting worried they will hit me with a whopping bill for making them escalate it to court, then that I don't have enough on my side in defence. I realise this may be the result of watching far too many crime dramas. Again, thanks everyone for their patience and help.

[dx100uk]

where does anything say it's a fine please?

 

CEL very rarely win any claims

 

just use our search top right

type in CEL and read.

 

stop fretting. until/unless you get a letter of claim.

as has been said numerous times

[FTMDave]

I was going to write to say to give Morrison's both barrels, but upthread you say that Morrison's state it is a private car park.  Well, is it or isn't it?  Is it a private car park or specifically for Morrison's?

 

Also, have a reread of the posts by lookinforinfo & brassnecked.  They have stated reason after reason why you're legally in the right and if CEL were stupid enough to do court they'd get a right kicking.  

[lookinforinfo]

If CEL take you to Court they are bound to lose as they have no contract with you.

ABC has the contract with the landowner.

 

So if they do try it on, when you send them the CPR31.14 asking for the documents that they will need to win the case, they will not have any paperwork from the landowner giving them permission to do anything in that car park. 

 

Just relax and get on with your life and forget about CEL.

However if you do get a letter before Claim let us know straight away so we can send them on their way with a snotty letter.

[yewneik]

Thanks lookforinfo, think I’m having a crisis of confidence, guess that’s the idea though! You’ve all been a massive help.