Here is the letter as actually received by the motorist.
And here is the doctored version sent to POPLA
The motorist was visiting a hotel, and not a Lido, so the doctored letter, although still only semi-literate, makes it seem as though CEL actually considered the motorist's appeal rather than sending out a template response.
For the record, the motorist won the POPLA appeal, although POPLA were silent on the matter of doctored evidence.
The Prankster can think of no valid reason why the wrong evidence was sent to POPLA. If this was deliberate, then it is worrying that parking companies think they can doctor evidence to put themselves in a better light. If this is accidental, (and the Prankster cannot think of a scenario where this mistake could accidentally happen) then the validity of all evidence ever submitted by this company both to POPLA and the courts must be called into question.
The Prankster would like to advise Civil Enforcement Limited that it is in their best interests to leave the British Parking Association and join the Independent Parking Committee. The IPC run a 'kangaroo court' style of appeals service where the motorist never gets to see the parking company evidence. This transgression would never have come to light in the IPC, and CEL could continue to submit whatever rubbish they like as evidence. Even better, CEL could submit no evidence at all as on current results, the IPC assessors always believe whatever the parking company says.
The Prankster considers that CEL would have won the appeal had the IPC considered it.
The Parking Pranster