Civil Enforcement Ltd

[ladybanker]

Hello,

I have been sent 4 parking contrevention notices for parking in a 2.5 hour car park for longer than allowed, each at £150 or £75 if paid within 14 days.
The car park is next to a train station where daily tickets are 4.00, on the 4 days I used this car park, the station car park was full, and the nearest parking meter was not working... I was actually going to buy tickets at £4.00 and put this in my car, even though my car was not effectively in the correct car park. I however did not know that the two car parks were not 'related' until I spoke with a man in the ticket office on the 4th day, and he told me that the private car park was nothing to do with the rail station.
Upon further inspection the notices do actually say that photos of offending cars will be used and motorist details will be retrieved from DVLA -
Can anyone help me to fight this as £300 at this time of year is a bit on the hefty side.

Thanks

[perky88]

You say the nearest parking meter was not working ?? Were there other ones in the Train Station car park ?

You say you were going to buy a £4 ticket .. did you ... for any of the days ???

If you did not .. why not .. is there a charge at the railway carpark for not buying a £4 parking ticket ??

I know in any event you did not use the correct carpark- but your defence would be stronger if you had proof to say you purchased a ticket anyway.

I am confused by your statement "I was actually going to buy tickets at £4.00 and put this in my car, even though my car was not effectively in the correct car park" - to me this reads you knew the carparks were different !!!

As for the carpark not being the same one ... what led you to beleive they were all the same - if at all you did ?? (ie. is it 1 open area and some spaces are railway and others not .. or is it a completely seperate area with a different way in ??)

What signage is on display to indicate the railway carpark and the other carpark ... did you make reasonable steps to check ??

You say there are signs stating there are notices ... are there many of them / on way in-out/around carpark ?? - and was it reasonable to expect you to see them as a matter of course (not if you did or didnt ...) - the question being were the signs clearly on display to be read and by your own negligance you failed to ???

What prompted you on day 4 to ask the question ?? why not day 1 ?? - and on day 4 was this as you returned to your vehicle or when purchasing you ticket ?? - if when purchasing why did you not move your vehicle immediately then you would only have 3 tickets ???

So many questions ... but before you can get a qualified answer the full facts need to be explained

[ladybanker]

The station car park ticket machine was not working for all 4 days, i asked the ticket office chap on the 4 th day because it was the only day I had time to stop and chat... lame excuse I know !
I didnt buy tickets because the machines were not working, I have no idea if there are any other machines, its only a small car park... the station car park and the private one are separated by a metal tube running half the length of both car parks and is not visable upon first inspection as it is about 2 foot from the ground... the private car park does however have its own entrance which is next to the station one.

I couldnt move my car when I was told the car parks were different because the station one was full already.

I have since been back to the private car park and the sign are quite obvious, I was just in such a rush I didnt stop to read them.. again a lame excuse !!

Hope this is clearer !!

Thanks

[green_and_mean]

If the car parks are seperate and run by different companies the whole station car park broken machine saga is irrelevant. You parked in a private car park without a following whatever it says on the signs. It is therefore a private car parking matter so reading the threads at top of forum should help.

[Howard0181]

grean and mean 100% correct. You can ignore or write back stating "what basis do you consider that I have entered into any contract with you or the landlowner".

Dont pay.

[ladybanker]

Thanks so much...

I am going to go down the 'I am the registered keeper, but you need to contact the driver' road, and see what happens !

One thing is for sure, I am going to get a cab to the station from now on !

[perky88]

Howard0181.
The OP has stated (1) the signs are clear, she was just in a rush that she didnt see them for 4-days (2) she has confirmed she was the driver.

Why would you be stating dont pay ?? - If the signs were hidden/not clear .. if there was some confusion about land ownership (she thought it was the train station) then I could understand your comment but in this I cant.

The day4 argument is very questionable indeed, once she was made aware it was not linked with the carpark she still left her car because the other was full ... what justification is there for this ?????

This is definately a case of fair cop .. she parked, ignored the signs due to negligance on her part and now shes trying to wriggle out of something and asking people for help to do it ... surely that goes against the whole principle of this site (ie. help people when a wrong has been done/to get justice) ...

Is I was the OP I would be VERY careful of the advice to be stroppy/ignore the company - for 4 tickets they may take her to court and I must say on the face it of they would have an easy case and it would cost the OP more in the long run.

[Barnsley Boy]

Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Perky, but he's got a point.

On the 4th occasion the OP knew the Car Park was private, subject of separate terms and conditions but parked there anywhere, effectively agreeing to said terms and conditions by performance ie parking.

I would quibble with Perky about the detail however about negligence for the first 3 tickets.
Were the signs adequate?
Did they establish a contract or not?
Did they use unallowed terms such as "penalty", "fine" or "trespass"

In an ideal world, peopled by reasonable people, the OP might consider negociating to pay the 4th ticket but having the other 3 set aside. Unfortunately PPCs are not reasonable people, they would want the lot - £300, £600 if not paid in 10 days.

This level of "fine" [actually Invoice] is completely disproportionate, Have a look at your local paper, Magistrates Court, people get fined less for glassings or stabbings.

On balance I'd say we have a transgression [the OP has admitted mistakes] versus a completely OTT response £16 plays £300

Although not black & white I'd still go with the OP. No reason to make the PPCs job any easier, now where's that RK letter template.

OP should be OK, Civil Enforcement Ltd well known on this and other forums for threatening lots but not carrying through.

[perky88]

The ground of consent, or volenti fit injuria is a maxim founded on good sense and justice that “One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong”.

If the OP parked and the signage is "the sign are quite obvious" and "I was just in such a rush I didnt stop to read them.. again a lame excuse !!
" - (OPs own words) ... on the face of it she is liable to pay.

I have not seen the signage for this company or the charge notice, google doesnt seem to being up a link for civil enforcement ltd , but they are a largish company so I presume they are worded as parking charges and not penalties.

The argument about £4 per day -vs- £60 parking charge is irrelevant, its not a fine but a pre-set parking charge, IF it is clearly displayed what the terms were (£60/£120 etc.) then it will be valid and legal.

People often come to court and state "why would I have risked a £60 ticket when I could have paid £1 to park" - the truth is, people do (I manage a parking company and often park outside our local pub on double yellows, I have not been done yet but 1 day I will be on the law of averages ... and I'll just have to say fair cop).

I dispute the generalisation that all people who work for PPC are not reasonable ... If this case was given to me for consideratation I would look at the facts:

1- 4 tickets issued in sucsession .. then suddenly stopped, was the person local/was it a genuine mistake (unless they have lots of other cases .. but in this one I base only these 4 issued).

2- It looks as if this parking company does not issue charges on the window but send via post - so if it was a genuine mistake, the driver did not know as no actual ticket issued, if a ticket was issued then maybe after 1 ticket it would have stopped.

3- Are they local to any of our agents for court enforcement (if the PPC is in devon and the RK in Newcastle) and they dont have local agents in newcastle for enforcement - will the court case charges for travel alone outweigh the tickets ... rememebring that all travel expenses/loss of earnings are discretionary.

On the face of it, I would probarly agree to 2 of the 4 being cancelled and the other 2 paid .. If I was the OP and only they know the signage and if any reasonable person if they were not rushed would have seen the signage/seperation, I would send a without prejeduice letter offering to pay the 2 tickets and not the other 2 - the company will probarly accept that.

Of course, if the OP feels that the signage is incorrect/unfair/badly written and they have the time to fight it .. then thats something for them - also does Civil Enforcement actually take things to court if they are in the right ?

[green_and_mean]

Would the company not have to prove the OP reparked daily unless the signs stated it was a daily penalty? If it says 'if you park here without a permit a charge of £xx will be made' surely £xx covers the entire parked period?

[perky88]

Originally Posted by green_and_mean

Would the company not have to prove the OP reparked daily unless the signs stated it was a daily penalty? If it says 'if you park here without a permit a charge of £xx will be made' surely £xx covers the entire parked period?

Thats a good point and one that was considered approx 6months ago when we changed our signage.
Our signage now states that 1 charge can be issued every 24hrs and this was due to reading a case where multiple tickets were issued to a vehicle over 7-days (they were on holiday or something).
1 ticket was payable as it was clear the vehicle had not moved and the signage only stated a parking charge was payable and not for the time period.

The OP moved her vehicle - but only the photogrpahs taken at the time of charge issue will show ... If it clearly shows a different location then I would presume the moving argument may fail and she may be liable for all, based on common sense ..

But if they only have basic pics (or worse still, none at all) .. then I see she could argue only for 1 ticket .. she should ask for ALL photogrpahs taken and then decide from there .. I think she would be justified in saying no ticket was issued to the vehicle so she cant remember exactly and to send pics with the 4 different tickets issued.

[Howard0181]

ladybanker

At best the owner of the landlord is entitled to damages from you. In other words what is there loss? Its £16 as its £4 at £4 per day.

Dont worry about Perky he is just trying to scare you.

I dont believe the company will sue. You can ignore (you will get numerous letters in next year) or you could write back requesting they advise on what basis they have entered into any contract with you.

[perky88]

Howard ... Why would I want to scare her ??? what another company does is nothing to me ..... I just dont want the OP to get lumbered with lots of additional charges !!

You have obviously NOT understood the OP original post .. it was not the trainstation carpark, the £4 was for the trainstation .. the 2 are NOT linked .. so where did you get £4 per day from and how (if they were going to sue for loss of revenue would they get to £4 per day) !!!

Heres a question ... Would you be prepared to stand by your advice and if the OP gets additional charges then you undertake to pay them .. come on, stand up and be counted ... I think thats fair.

If I advised someone to do x and it ended up costing them money, I think its the right thing to do.

You are clearly advising her not to pay and ignore them, the charges will escalate ... or write to them asking on what basis they entered into a contract .. I thought that was obvious .. by the OP own admision, more than adequate signage on display to be read ...

We can easily setup an formal agreement between yourself and the OP for you to undertake the additional debt if they do take her to court and win.

So... are you up for it ????

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by perky88

I have not seen the signage for this company or the charge notice, google doesn't seem to being up a link for civil enforcement ltd , but they are a largish company so I presume they are worded as parking charges and not penalties.

I would say that the company disagree that their signs are enforceable. CEL are quite often mentioned in the threads here and are the company behind the Gatwick BP/Macdonalds scam.

[perky88]

ladybanker.
Just do whatever you want - as I am sure you will see from this forum private parking tickets are non enforceable so just ignore the letters and they will go away.
If anyone else tells you otherwise then they are crazy (despite any evidecne they can give to the contary).

Good luck ... but if I were you (seriously) - I would get qualified legal advice from a qualified solicitor/legal advisor ... goto CAB or see if your home insurance has a lgeal helpline rather then listening to unqualified people ...

The advice given by websites like this, unfortunatly, on some issues has as much use as asking people in the local pub on a saturday night ... they all give advice/know someone its happened to etc... BUT its your money ... worth getting REAL advice.

If you do accept advice on here just ask the person 1 question ... how are you qualified to give it ?? Have you personally experienced it ? Were the circumstances the same (or similar to mine) ??

Anyway signing off now ... its been a fun few days .. but back to work and important isues now.

Good luck in your decision

[legalhawk]

Originally Posted by perky88

The ground of consent, or volenti fit injuria is a maxim founded on good sense and justice that “One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong”.

The legal principle is "volenti non fit injuria" and means "to a willing person no injury is done". It is a defence of a defendant in a tort which states that if the claimant has willingly put themselves in a dangerous situation, they cannot claim liability of the defendant.

[legalhawk]

Originally Posted by perky88

The argument about £4 per day -vs- £60 parking charge is irrelevant, its not a fine but a pre-set parking charge, IF it is clearly displayed what the terms were (£60/£120 etc.) then it will be valid and legal.

It may very well be relevant. Every term in a contract between a consumer and a business are subject to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994. It states in s. 5(1):

An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer.

A £60 parking charge for a £4 service seems prima facie unfair to me.

And this assumes there is in fact a contract. I am still waiting for an explanation to how a sign is sufficient for the formation of a contract.

While signs can be sufficient notice for implied terms to a contract, acceptance of an offer to form a contract must be communicated. Silence is generally not acceptance as stated in Felthouse v. Bindley.

And this is only one hurdle. There are still other reasons why it is very dubious to me that a contract might exist.

Disclaimers: This posting has only the purpose of academic discussion of the general subject of contract law. It does not in any way represents legal advise.