CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW***Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

On post 11 dx100uk asked if you fill in some questions that could help your case.

Could you please answer them and include the first PCN they sent suitably redacted showing the front and back of the Notice.

[lookinforinfo]

You may have to go to Court later this year and you still haven't posted your original PCN. This is a very important document as if the rogues get it wrong it makes their case much harder fro them to win.

Could you please post the front and the back of the first PCN they sent you and please ensure that we can see all the wording and that it is legible -not out of focus and preferably a decent font size.

[lookinforinfo]

I know there is 145 posts to trawl through looking for your original PCN as I did it. But three days and still not posted it

Surely quicker to post it now as if the PCN does not comply with PoFA you can combine it in your WS now  without having to rewrite it.

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry,  you did include your original PCN but you redacted so much of the necessary in formation-times and dates. A few minutes over time can be argued away but over 38 minutes is not easy to explain . Is there a reason why you were so much longer than the time you expected?

Thank you for the photos of the car park showing ABC management faciliities running the car park then. Of course they went into liquidation in 2016 so were not members of the BPA or the ISC at  that time so were not capable of having a relationship with the DVLA nor did they have to comply with PoFA 2012. CEL were mentioned but in very small print and appeared to be minor partners in  the  relationship. ABC appear to be the major company running the car park so one would expect that the contract to run the car park would be in their name. If CEL were involved one would expect that they would comply with KADOE terms and show the BPA membership logo.

The signs appear to show that the car park is run by ABC a company in liquidation so no breach of their T7Cs could have occurred.,. the PCN does nor comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 since it does not specify the parking period. Obviously the ANPR cameras only record the entry and departure times of vehicles but have no clue how long it takes for motorists  to find a parking spot and then drive into it being careful to park between the lines and then later leave the parking spot and drive to the exit. This can take anywhere from a few minutes to perhaps half an hour depending on the volume of traffic in the car park at the time and how difficult it may be to leave the car park and filter into a busy road , not to mention returning the trolley tio the car park or strapping children or disabled people int o the car before being able to drive off..

 

You can also complain about their LOC bei I will post it when I find it.ng sparse on info. leading to the Court cancelling the case altogether but I cannot find it at the moment.

[lookinforinfo]

The only problem is of course that you outed yourself as the driver which negates the keeper liability argument. The keeper is not liable so only the driver is. 

However even though the car park is small there is a minimum of a 5 minute Consideration period to read the T&Cs as well as a minimum of 10 minutes grace period on leaving. So can you find a further 10 minutes or so to get you to roundabout 38 minutes. 

For instance did you have any children with you or disabled people. Was the road blocked with traffic [difficult as there would have to be other cars who would also have overstayed then] Illness? Long queue in the store and not enough staff at the checkouts? etc

 

[lookinforinfo]

You are getting there  though I would point out in your WS at 2.8 that  you could add  that  neither of  those companies are members of the BPA nor the IPC and are not able to apply to the DVLA for motorists data. Nor are they obliged to observe the rules of PoFA.

Which is why their signs do not comply with the BPA code of Conduct.

In 4.2  it is best to quote the actual clause from PoFA  as not all Judges are au fait with PoFa. In this case the parking period is Schedule 4 Section 9[2]a]  

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

However as you have outed yourself as the driver it is probably not worth mentioning any of it.

your 4.4 point should follow or be included in point 4.1 to make sense.

you should also ask for the whole case to be struck out because of the extra charge.

[lookinforinfo]

Any sign of their WS yet Storyboard?

[lookinforinfo]

None of the signs comply with the BPA Code of Conduct as ABC are not members of the BPA.

[lookinforinfo]

The Confirmation of Authority is not a contract.

I am attempting to sort out the companies involved in this car park and perhaps some one from the legal team can confirm the situation.

ABC facilities Management Ltd started off as 

Ace Cleaning Solutions ltd in 20th February 2014

then became ABC Parking Solutions Ltd  28th June 2016

finally becoming ABC facilities management Ltd 19th November 2019.

The company was dissolved 11th March 2023 having been struck off.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The signature on the authority could be that  of Georgios Malekos who apparently owned 75% of the shares  January 1st 2017. Interestingly the Government up to date info does not list ABC as being one of the companies he owned. And you would have thought that even if is English may not have been that great he would at least have known the correct address of the car park. Nevertheless though he is not listed as a director he still appears to be the major shareholder but not the one with the biggest financial investment.

As he appears to have been in control since prior to your  event and still is , I am unsure of the legal situation with  the change of companies since he signed that authority.  Normally a change of company would necessitate a new authority . perhaps the contract will make things clearer.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

 

You can't bother me Nicky-I've been heckled by professionals.

[lookinforinfo]

ABC being dissolved [no I have no idea why ] does not affect your case just those who may be ticketed these days possibly.

The question is whether the certificate  apparently signed by Mr Malekos when it was ABC Parking Solutions still is valid under the new name of ABC facilities management when Mr Malekos was the major shareholder with both companies.

Also are the signs lawful when ABC was not a member of BPA at that time. By lawful I mean did the signs comply with PoFA so that there was a reasonable cause for the DVLA to send your data to CEL, or did they not have to comply with PoFA and still be able to provide a reasonable cause. Especially bearing in mind that though he was the major shareholder he wasn't a director and did that disqualify him from being able to sign that  legal document on behalf of ABC.

Of course we still have to see the contract ............................which may well be sufficient  on its own to damn their case regardless of .any other considerations.

 

[lookinforinfo]

We don't know if ABC in whatever name they used have not signed a contract with CEL.  If they have then was it signed by Mr Malekos  or an actual director of the company. 

Might be worthwhile getting photos of the current signage to see if the ABC signs are still there. It won't affect your case in one sense but mentioning it if they  are still using ABC might call into question the car park's validity.

[lookinforinfo]

The WS is very disappointing coming form a barrister albeit apparently not much experience with PoFA.

He of all people should recognise that being parked  is not the same as "car broken down". Jopson v Homeguard  cleared up what was parking and whilst broken down was not included that was only because the Judge did not exhaust all the possibilities of what defines the word parking.Moreover the OP was leaving well within the time limits until his car wouldn't start. 

The barrister of all people should know that the amount that can be claimed under PoFA is the amount on the sign. And he should also know that putting an unspecified amount on a sign does not commit a motorist to paying an extra specified amount. In any event the Beavis knocked on the head any extra charges.

The signs displayed on the WS are illegible.There is a case for arguing that this was deliberate to prevent the Judge from seeing that the signs are not in the name of CEL but instead they are either in the name of ABC Parking Solutions Ltd for which there is a letter of Authority from someone who is not a Director and other signs in the name of ABC Car Parking Solutions ltd who there appears to be no trace of.  The signage should be in the name of CEL to comply with PoFA. On top of that  the entrance sign is only  an offer to treat so does not offer any kind of contract.  

I notice that no contract appears to have been provided. Do not tell them since without it their case should be thrown out anyway.

[lookinforinfo]

Don't tell them that they have not provided a contract. Without it they cannot prove they have a case so the Judge should throw out the case.

You should have a copy of your WS  that you can refer to plus any other points that you can make though if they are not already in your WS or defence they may not be accepted.

[lookinforinfo]

Why not? As long as it does not say in the heading "Without Prejudice" you are free to complain about extra costs which were specifically not allowed in the PE v  Beavis case.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for getting the new photos.The signs shown on their WS should be copies of the signs at the time you allegedly breached their terms.

Atlantis FM is a company where Mr Malekos is listed as a Director.. Too late for your case though so nothing altered as far as your case goes.

[lookinforinfo]

I am really happy you got the result you wanted.

We never know what kind of Judge will look at your case so we have to cover all eventualities.

Your Judge concentrated on one aspect while another may have looked in a different direction.

Both ways should still have given you the same result.