CEL ANPR PCN - POPLA unsuccessful -PAPLOC - Now Claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park, London SE5 8RW - paid have receipt too! ***Claim Discontinued***

[lookinforinfo]

The logic of POPLA is weird.

The motorist has ten minutes at least to decide whether they want to stay after having read the T&CS. So if a motorist decides not to stay,  going by their logic the motorist would have had to leave a couple of minutes earlier than that if they have to have left the car park  by ten minutes.

 

Therefore they would not have been given ten minutes consideration. Muppets.

 

The same with your phone call.

The fact that you hadn't paid within ten minutes, which is not what the arrangement is, but that from the ten minute time, you were trying to make the payment.  And if they had a decent ANPR system that recorded your reg. number on arrival they would not have needed to have you enter your number.

 

Is it possible that you could return to the car park and take photos of the signage there. A clear and legible picture of the entrance sign and other dotted around the car park especially those that are different from other parking signs there as well as pictures of their payment machine and legible picture of the T&Cs on the machine or the nearest sign to the machine. Their ten minute rule is important to include. Most signage doesn't mention ten minutes.

 

Signage is one of the ways in which these crooks lose in Court so seeing them in advance of any possible court hearings is an advantage.

[lookinforinfo]

I have never seen such an array of different car park signs in any other car park. There is ABC car park solutions at the entrance. You are right it does not state that you have 10 minutes to pay, rendering their signs to pay within ten minutes inside unnecessary to observe. It should also state that the car park is under the aegis of either the BPA or IPC. Probably neither would want to put their name to this one though. 

Then they have another company signing a sign as ABC Facilities Management Ltd and yet a third company on the pay machine-Star Park. And all but the pay machine have the added name of CEL. It just goes to show that POPLA  is unfit for the purpose but it is good news for you since the site is such an absolute joke that no Judge would take it seriously.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I suppose you can now expect to get several letters from an unregulated debt collector. they usually send out one or two requests fro payment then they start sending you demands headed Final Demand.  You'll probably get three of those. I think they were off school the day English comprehension was on the curriculum. 

 

Absolutely nothing to worry about from them. Just ignore them they are not worth even a second class stamp. Totally ineffectual unless you have a cat as I understand that it fits quite well into the kitty litter tray. 

 

Eventually you might get a Letter of Claim from  CEL or  some muppets who call themselves solicitors.   Let us know and you can send them a rude letter which may get them to look elsewhere for a mug as it'e obvious that you aren't one.

[lookinforinfo]

Annabooo at the moment your PCN dated 26th May is not PoFA compliant but that may be because the required wording is on the back of the PCN. Could you please therefore repost the whole of both pages from the Notice to Keeper. 

 

Moving on the second point which is about the signage. ABC parking look as if they are in charge there but enforcement is by CEL.  Could you please write to the DVLA and ask about ABC parking.

 

Ask the DVLA if they know that ABC have signage in the car park with no BPA nor IPC logos on the signs probably because they do not appear to be members of either. Does the DVLA know that ABC parking Ltd. no longer appear to be in business. Nor do they appear to be registered  with the ICO under GDPR regulations.

 

In which case should they be showing their signs in the car park? And does CEL have the right to use ABC signage to enforce their PCNs? And does the contract with the land owners allow a third party involvement? And confirm that it was ABC that applied for the data since it was their signage on site.

In the BPA Code of Conduct they say that their members should exhibit the BPA logo on their  signs. CEL do not even have any signs in the car park let alone any with a BPA logo. Therefore as  they are in breach of the BPA CoP  ask the DVLA if that means that CEL  have  obtained your data unlawfully.

 

Email all those questions to the DVLA         [email protected]

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting the PCN front and back.

 

THe NTK is not compliant for two reasons.

The wording on the back of the notice is almost right but not enough to make it compliant.

 

this is what PoFA states should be said   (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) .

 

This is what CEL put it "is subject to the applicable conditions in that Schedule" which is almost meaningless.

They are practically saying that there are certain conditions that are demanded in Schedule 4 but they haven't admitted to abiding by them. And they do have to admit that in s9 [2][f].

 

They are supposed to state the period of parking within which the breach occurred. Instead they have quoted the time of arrival at the car park and the time of leaving. As the new CoP remarks, those times are not the times of parking since drivers have to find a place to park and then on leaving may take several minutes to actually leave the car park.

 

The parking crooks may say that the new CoP has not yet come into force. But the Government have said that those parts of the new Act that can be brought into force straight away should be. In any event it was always Parliaments intention that there was a distinction between a period of parking and the arrival and leaving of the car park as the original draft of PoFA included the period of parking. It is the parking companies who have usurped that intention by their greed in trying to squeeze out every last minute of time for their own financial benefit. 

 

For instance they include entering the car park as part of their grace period when drivers cannot read the T&Cs on a notice when trying to park a car at the same time.

 

Also when writing to the DVLA please ask them all the questions I posed in my previous post to you.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Annabooo that was a very poor response to your query. It's up to you but you could respond in the way below.

 

I am in receipt of your email which did not even attempt to answer my question which was about ABC parking. Not once did you even mention their name in your response let alone justify the fact that they appear to be carrying on the duties of a parking operator without being either a member of the BPA or IPC.

 

Were you aware of the practice? If so  and you don't disapprove of the practice it would have helped answer my question had you given the reasons for your decision.  Obviously ABC Parking do not need to observe  the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and could amend their signage to whatever they want since they cannot display the BPA logo as required in the BPA CoP. . Given your naive belief stated further down your email 

 that you believe that "the BPA Code of Practice  promotes fair treatment of the motorist" I have no faith that the DVLA are capable of monitoring the ABC signage either now or in the future.

 

As you know the Government has produced a new Code of Practice which came into force back in 2019. It's final part does not come into force until next year to allow the necessary changes to their paperwork such as PCNs as well as rewriting the contracts with land owners for instance. However other parts should already be in force. But BPA are too busy complaining about what the changes will do to their members when what they should have been doing is amending their Code of Practice to comply with the new Government Code of practice.

 

So we have a situation where the new Act is not being introduced by the BPA nor the IPC and so things that should no longer be considered as "reasonable cause" are still being treated by the BPA  and yourselves at the DVLA as if they are lawful. For instance under the new CoP many car parks are by Law entitled to a 10 minute consideration period where a parking ticket must not be issued. Yet some parking companies including CEL demand that payment for parking must be completed within ten minutes. There is a conflict for the DVLA. Under the new Government  CoP, in force since 2019 the issue of a ticket has to wait for ten minutes minimum while the PPA CoP still suggests that a ticket can be issued if payment is not made within ten minutes.

 

I would welcome your comments and suggest that rather than use BPA or the even more  infamous IPC as arbiters of what is fair to motorists you study PoFA and take your guidance from that.

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Annabooo they fob you off as they never like to  admit they are wrong. I hope that by pointing out that they should be complying with PoFA rather than using the BPA and IPC Codes of Conduct as their yardstick  they will get the message about the reasonable cause for sending out driver's details to the crooks.

[lookinforinfo]

Annabooo has the DVLA not even acknowledged your correspondence let alone answer your query.

[lookinforinfo]

I don't think they will be in too much of a hurry to answer your question. The DVLA say they  have a robust system regarding parking companies and PoFA [they don't ] so they will have difficulty squaring this circle where the BPA Code of Conduct conflicts with PoFA.

 

I expect that the ICO will have to get involved at some time.

 

By supplying your data to CEL could call into question the DVLA's use of reasonable cause and if they were wrong to provide it then the DVLA may have breached your GDPR as well as CEL.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Annaboo I am sorry they have decided to perhaps take the plunge.

Your letter is fine other than should it not be I don't believe  YOUR claim is valid..

[lookinforinfo]

As Dave has said they do have a weak case.

 

First you can claim frustration of contract because their system prevented you from paying within their time restraints. (,, Perhaps part of their plan to increase their income.)

 

And of course you did not accept their contract until you made the payment. Plus you paid.

Misguided chucklebuts.

[lookinforinfo]

I see Dcbl are up to their old trick of double charging . How do they get away with it,?

 

What with frustration of contract and frustration from CEL that is surely enough doubletons for one day.

[lookinforinfo]

Annaboo if you read some of the successful cases at the top of the Private Land Enforcement page you will find a number of people who have had dealings with the Court. Not one of them have said it is scary especially as they won there.

It is very informal-you refer to the Judge as Sir or Madam [thank you again HB] . and then you win. 

[lookinforinfo]

Could you please post up their WS when you receive it.

 

Further points for your WS.

 

ABC Solutions  no longer exist.

Their name was changed to ABC Facilities back in November  2019 their signs without the additional Facilities Company being included on the signs should not be there.

 

Also ABC Facilities are not members of BPA or IPC. and their accounts are overdue with an active proposal to strike them off.

 

ABC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LTD overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK

---

ABC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT LTD - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

 

Thank you for posting their signage especially the one entering the car park.

 

Since it only states that the T&Cs are in the car park it does not offer a contract there it is just an offer to treat. That means that as there appears to be no strictures on the payment machine about the ten minute rule, then you accepted that offer to pay rather than the one that wanted paying within ten minutes.  [The offer to treat].

 

I am unsure that ABC can operate in that car park since they are not members of either parking authority which means that they do not have to observe the PoFA regs. It seems wrong that they can have signage there at all.

 

I know you didn't get much change out of the DVLA  but perhaps escalating to the ICO asking them if its right that ABC parking can still have their name on parking signs when they no longer exist and its successor ABC Facilities does not appear to be registered with the ICO.

 

My pet tortoise reacts faster than the ICO so likely that they won't reply before the Court case. Perhaps mentioning that the  case is getting close might spur them on.

 

But having their view from a legal standpoint could help you if there was so timely help .

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Just don't go out trying to get more parking tickets so you can end up in court again!

 

If CEL are reading your thread they may decide to drop your case just to disappoint you.

That's how mean they can be.

 

Yes it is the Information Commissioner's office..

[lookinforinfo]

In order to even attempt at claiming motorists accept  the contract on entering the car park the very least the **** could do is to include all their T&Cs at the entrance.  very few do that since it is hardly possible to read all the terms as  well as driving into a car park. So most of the time the entrance sign says private land and the rules are inside.  So that cannot form a contract with motorists until after they have entered, parked and read the rules.

So when the regs. are inside the car park no contract is offered at the entrance-just an offer to treat. And if inside the car park there are several different signs showing different T&Cs the motorist can accept the most agreeable terms to them from the sign and it is the norm that when you pay at a machine you are agreeing to the terms on the machine as opposed to those on the signs.

 

ABC Parking and ABC Facilities are not members of the BPA or the IPC so it seems strange that they can dictate T&Cs especially when one of those companies no longer exists. It is also questionable whether they can state that extra charges will be added if payment is not made within a certain period. And if they are in the form of damages they certainly cannot be charged since only the land owner can charge that. PoFA also says that all that can be claimed is the amount specified on the sign.  And the new Government  Private Parking Code of Practice is totally clear that the extra amounts cannot be charged. As that is the will of Parliament Judges should accept that ruling . 

 

You are probably right about the ICO. However I think your local Trading Standards may well be more interested in the situation there. Both because there are three different companies involved, one no longer exists  and one is not a member .Plus the signage goes against the Law and is ripping off motorists. as well as probably not having planning permission.

[lookinforinfo]

You could point out that you were waiting for their WS and that you still haven't received it. Bit cheeky perhaps to ask the Court just yet to dismiss their WS when yours was late too but something to use should you actually end up in Court.

Don't forget to send your WS to the rogues as well. You can do that by email but block your email address after you send your WS to them.

 

[lookinforinfo]

When or if you receive their WS you can always add a supplemental WS if their WS is factually inaccurate or something they wrote needs amendment as it will be slanted in their favour.

[lookinforinfo]

Annaboo your WS was not as strong as it could have been. I have put in what you should also have said. You didn't complain enough about their poor payment facilities which  made it virtually impossible to pay within the allotted time but as you paid that should be enough with most Judges. Sadly not with them all.

Hopefully their WS will give you the opportunity to add an addendum to your first WS .

The signage can be very important-it should comply with PoFA and the BPA Code of Practice. They don't. The entrance sign does not list the T&Cs so is only an offer to treat it does not offer a contract. There is nothing on the sign that mentions the car park is BPA approved. That is a breach of their Code of Practice.

Once inside the car park motorists are faced with three different companies signage-none of them are by CEL and none of them are members of BPA or IPC. Further one of the companies ceased trading back in 2019. I cannot see that CEL can lawfully issue PCNs in this car park when the Terms and Conditions of the companies who have their signage in the car park appear to need vetting or approval from the DVLA, BPA or the IPC. Again none of the signs are marked with the BPA approval sign just like the entrance sign.

This is the BPA Code of Conduct relating to signage 

"19.7 You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly"

The inference here is that there is no legitimate operator and the site is run improperly.  Also CEL is thus failing to comply with its Code of Conduct and as such should not be able to gain data from the DVLA. And should not have been given your information.

As an aside Annaboo, ABC Facilities Management ltd was dissolved on 11th April 2023. Might be an idea to see if their signs are still present in the car park. [The fact that it was dissolved this year doesn't affect your case as that happened back in 2021 but if their signage is still there now I am sure CEL will not want to go to Court.

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Is there any update on MCol?  24 hours advance notice is not good enough and cannot be right. 

[lookinforinfo]

I am so pleased to hear your result.No doubt you are too, frustrating though the last few weeks have been. DCBL seem to make a habit of discontinuing  days before cases are due to come to Court.

[lookinforinfo]

Well done for trying. And although we might never know, perhaps the next person who complains that they didn't receive their NoD at the right time might get a different letter than the whitewash you received.

[lookinforinfo]

Never thought I would see DCBL and the words responsible legal professionals in the same sentence.