Civil Enforcement resonce letter

[taylorbarnard]

Hi all,

 

Following my first letter using the template provided i have now received a repy from Civi Enforcement Ltd.

What responce should i repy with now can anybody help please.

 

TB

 

a7101

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

Morton House

Exchange Flags

Liverpool, L2 3PF

Tel: 0115 822 5020

xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

23/07/2008

Vehicle Registration

PCN Reference

Date of Offence 28/06/2008

Site Details CAR PARK AT WILSON PATTEN STREET, WARRINGTON, CHESHIRE, WA1 1PS

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATION

We are in receipt of your letter dated 02/07/2008. We have considered the matters raised, but regret to advise that we are unable to cancel this Parking Charge Notice. In response to the specific issues raised in your letter we would respond as follows:-

Our clients provide parking facilities for the short-term use of customers. They have experienced severe problems with unauthorised parking in their car park, resulting in vehicles being parked for long periods of time and occupying valuable space. There are many clear and visible signs displayed on the site, advising drivers of the regulations in force.

As the Registered Keeper we continue to hold you responsible for payment of the parking charge. You may, of course, choose to recover the cost from who ever you authorised to drive the vehicle or instruct the driver to make payment directly to us.

The PCN remains valid as the ticket was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions stated. Payment must therefore be made without delay.

However in view of your correspondence, we have extended the time allowance for you to pay at the original reduced charge by a further 7-days, even if you have received a final reminder demanding payment at the higher rate. Please note that to take advantage of this, your payment needs to be sent by cheque or postal order as you will not be able to make the reduced payment by credit or debit card.

In the event that payment is not received, we will have no option but to issue proceedings against you in the County Court, to recover the amounts due to us. We will add our additional costs, interest and fees to the claim.

 

 

 

Representations Team

 

 

 

Registered Office As Above

Registered in England

Company Registration Number 05645677

[Al27]

Most people would recommend you never bother communicating with them. There is no 'appeals procedure' as you've found out with your standard template letter response.

 

Certainly don't write to them again.

 

The usual rules apply:

 

• do not pay

• ignore any letters you receive, no matter how threatening

• they will go away after 5 or 6

• they won't take you to court

 

The letter is quite amusing though - apparently you have committed an 'offence' and they 'hold the registered keeper responsible'.

 

Hilarious claptrap.

[Barnsley Boy]

As Al27 has said - claptrap.

 

The template letter has however proved useful in this case. It has elicited a misrepresentation from CEL [they hold the registered keeper responsible]. It would be for others to say whether this is fraudulent or not, but a company the size of CEL should be expected to know the law as privity of contract, it is pretty basic stuff.

 

As Al says, do not engage further but be particularly safe in the knowledge that CEL have shot themselves royally in the foot. Keep the correspondance and hope that CEL take this to court.

 

Your correspondence evidence would make this an absolute slam dunk - judgement + costs in your favour.

 

Unfortunately this is simply not going to happen. CEL do know the actual legal position which is why they don't take people to court.

[taylorbarnard]

Thanks A123 and Barnsley Boy for your responce. I will take your advice and wait for them to get back in touch with me.

 

TB

[nwoody1000]

Do not pay these guys at all !! Civil enforcement ltd are a con team and have no links with councils or government agencies. They employ their own bailiffs and will leave you alone after sending 3-4 letters to you !! They have a non existant appeals process so dont wate your time

 

Do not call their team on 0115 822 5020. as they will see you as a victim. They pay £2.50 to the DVLA for your info and intimidate you !! They legally cannot make you pay and their Invoices look like they are done up by students with little legal pics on them and multi coloured !

 

they have a address which is in horton house, exchange flags, liverpool, l2 3pf though they are often moving offices and changing numbers !! They are based in Nottingham actually though only give away a PO BOX address. !!!

 

There fines are a rip off !!!! DO NOT PAY OR CONTACT THEM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. They are being investigated again by the local trading standards for not having a valid licence and breaching their conviction conditons !!! (Sept 09)

 

They cannot hold the registed keeper responsible as this is illeagal and the £10 they want for proof of the photo is a con and besides they can then charge your card / have your bank details from the cheque !!!

 

They will not take you to court as they are acting fraudulently ! Why would people use these cowboys ?

 

Regards

[DDWales]

They are being investigated again by the local trading standards for not having a valid licence and breaching their conviction conditons !!! (Sept 09)

 

Interesting! What conviction conditions and what are TS doing?

[steephill44]

Civil Enforcement Ltd. strike again! My car was left in a car park serving several retailers and which has a 90 min. limit. I do not think it was left for more than 90 mins. but have no proof as the firm want £10 for a picture.

 

I (as registered keeper) have received a "PCN" - defined as Parking Charge Notice, note, requiring payment of £150 (!! - my exclamations) - generously reduced to half if paid within 14 days) as the car was, it claims, left 11 minutes over the limit.

 

The reg. no. is correctly stated, as is the make, but the model is "DVL", whatever that is!

 

Shall I ask them who the driver was, as some advocate (including Pepipoo) or just ignore it? Whatever contract there might be, I cannot see that the firm or landowner could have lost money at a rate of £150 per 11 minutes or over £800 per hour. The car park is free for the 90 mins. and seldom full so I query whether there was any loss at all.

[DBC]

Just ignore. That's always the best plan.

[letshelp]

Civil Enforcement Ltd. strike again! My car was left in a car park serving several retailers and which has a 90 min. limit. I do not think it was left for more than 90 mins. but have no proof as the firm want £10 for a picture.

 

I (as registered keeper) have received a "PCN" - defined as Parking Charge Notice, note, requiring payment of £150 (!! - my exclamations) - generously reduced to half if paid within 14 days) as the car was, it claims, left 11 minutes over the limit.

 

The reg. no. is correctly stated, as is the make, but the model is "DVL", whatever that is!

 

Shall I ask them who the driver was, as some advocate (including Pepipoo) or just ignore it? Whatever contract there might be, I cannot see that the firm or landowner could have lost money at a rate of £150 per 11 minutes or over £800 per hour. The car park is free for the 90 mins. and seldom full so I query whether there was any loss at all.

Don't take them too seriously, best bet is to ignore them and get on with your life.

regards

[Al27]

so I query whether there was any loss at all

 

There wasn't.

 

It's a mail [problem].

 

Ignore them.

[steephill44]

Thanks to all who replied to me. I noticed there was a debate in Parliament on the subject but don't know what useful outcome there was. I have asked our MP to keep the problem in mind whenever appropriate.

 

On a more worrying note, the following appeared in our local paper. I assume the Trading Standards chap meant the operation was lawful, rather than the levying of "fines" but it will worry a lot of people and no doubt force tham to pay up. NB. I have removed references to location for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

SCORES of drivers who have had £150 ***** parking tickets have been told they are lawful.

Trading standards — which had been deluged with complaints from motorists who received tickets from the Liverpool-based car park operator — has investigated car park signs and how the tickets are issued.

Hundreds of people joined Facebook campaigns after they were issued with tickets in the **** car park, while visiting nearby *** and ********.

The £150 tickets are reduced to £75 if paid within a fortnight.

Motorists said the penalties were too much and unfair because many are issued at night, when there is no reason for limited waiting to be enforced.

Number plates are snapped by cameras and number plate recognition gets DVLA owner details of motorists who stay beyond the one-and-a-half hours — day or night.

Tickets are not issued at the time but drivers get a letter through the post.

Isle of Wight Council trading standards manager Richard Stone said: "We have taken a thorough look at this issue and found that, while the parking operation at Staples is not popular, it is lawful.

"We have also noticed the number of complaints about parking at this site have reduced since the issues were highlighted in the local media.">>

Edited April 1, 2010 by steephill44
To differentiate the quote from the rest

[Jamberson]

They seem to be saying the parking system is lawful - well, it probably is. I am not aware they are breaking the law.

 

However that does not mean their charges are enforceable. It can be lawful to send an invoice, and equally lawful to ignore it.

[steephill44]

Yes I agree. It is misleading for the average victim though.

[Al27]

Quote from Staples:

 

"PLEASE NOTE.. With regards to the new parking regulations on our site.. We are a tenant and have no jurisdiction over the car park.. All relevant communication should take place with the Car Park company.."

[lamma]

or the landowner/occupier

[steephill44]

How does the court decision (see Judge quashes £300 parking fine...because it set out to ‘frighten and intimidate’ driver | Mail Online) fit into all this? I would have thought that would have been the end of all these £100 plus demands!

[crem]

How does the court decision (see Judge quashes £300 parking fine...because it set out to ‘frighten and intimidate’ driver | Mail Online) fit into all this? I would have thought that would have been the end of all these £100 plus demands!

 

because each decision made in a magistrates court is individual. i.e. no single decision sets a presidence over future magistrates court cases.

[DBC]

because each decision made in a magistrates court is individual. i.e. no single decision sets a presidence over future magistrates court cases.

 

I thought that the above case was held in the county court, and not the magistrates court.

[steephill44]

Yes, the article refers to a JUDGE. I don't think it would go to magistrates unless it were a (fairly minor) criminal matter - eg. genuine local authority parking penalty. However, I think crem is right in that this court does not set precedents - it would have to have worked its way up to a higher court. Excel has threatened to appeal but as that was two years ago I assume nothing further has happened.

[Al27]

County court cases do not set a precedent.

 

Similar cases are *persuasive* though. Which is why the more PPC cases they lose, the chances of them succeeding diminishes.

[crem]

Oops! me bad! Yes I meant county court, but the point being made was still valid about no precedent being set as others have confirmed.

[letshelp]

Oops! me bad! Yes I meant county court, but the point being made was still valid about no precedent being set as others have confirmed.

Sends Crem £100 FINE to be paid within 7 days or goes up to, £1,000,000 and the threat of scary letters if not paid:D

regards

[crem]

Sends Crem £100 FINE to be paid within 7 days or goes up to, £1,000,000 and the threat of scary letters if not paid:D

regards

 

 

ooh good. I have nothing to ignore at the moment. :grin:

[Bruce Martyn]

And these clowns are at it again.

 

Similar story from a recent parking "situation" in Homebase Godalming.

 

Homebase have been totally unhelpful in dealing with these idiots and now we've received a £238 "Debt Collection" notice.

 

Your site and the Martin Lewis sites have been very helpful.

 

We have sent them a letter (first and last one we will send) telling them that we don't accept their invoice and that we have no intention of paying it.

 

The Consumer Protection Legislation regarding Unfair Contract Terms also has some useful stuff regarding such matters.

 

We will continue to ignore them and look forward to our day in court (if it ever happens).

 

Keep up the great threads.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Bruce Martyn

[steephill44]

Boycotting the shops who rely on these car parks seems our main weapon. With so much scope to buy on-line, I doubt if it will cause many of us too much hardship.

 

I have already implement buying office supplies on-line from Viking rather than from Staples whom I used to use (Civil Enforcement run car park), will watch DVD's rather than go to cinema (same problem), B & Q on-line rather than Homebase, and eBay and Amazon for almost everything. Why take the chance when that bargain for £20 off could cost you £150?

 

I think these large retailers will due the day they got tied up with cowboy car park operators! I have already returned my Staples discount card.

 

It is a bit more difficult with McDonalds - why should you have to rush your visit or find the meal costs more than that at a top restaurant? In the words of someone I can't recall. "They're 'aving a larff!"