CEL ANPR PCN - 1min over 30mins allowed - APPEALED - IBIS Hotel Enstone Court Wellingborough NN8 2DR

[Bazzerman]

I am a licensed Hackney carriage driver and operate and drive a wheelchair accessible taxi.

On Christmas Day, I was booked to collect a disabled person in her wheelchair.

I parked outside the reception with my ramps out.

I went to reception and explained who I was and the reason.

The passenger who is disabled eventually pushed herself to the reception in her wheelchair

and I wheeled her into my taxi and left.

The receptionist never told me that I had 30 minutes before I would be fined.

I have received my 3rd letter from CEL, threatening Court action.

I understand that I was less then one minute over the 30 minute "free" period as is permitted in their car park.

I was under the arch outside reception the whole time.

I have read that I should ignore these demands

but would like clarification please as I don't want to get a CCJ over this.

Thanks.

[renegadeimp]

You haven't been fined. It's a speculative invoice. You also won't get a ccj for this at all. Sit tight, relax and the regulars will be around soon

[BankFodder]

Please follow the link at the word – ignore.

 

The best thing you can do is write them one letter, telling the situation and that you don't propose to pay them anything and that if they want you happy to see them in court.

 

Tell them that if they do decide to force you into court, you will make sure that there is publicity which will bring their already disreputable industry further into disrepute.

 

Tell them that you won't have any more correspondence with them until you receive the claim form.

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

fill this out please

[ericsbrother]

CEL are a bunch of crooks (not just my opinion but that of Trading Standards, the CPS some judges and most of their one time customers) they may well continue to chase you.

Do you have any of the letters you received in the first place, especially the NTK they should have sent you within 14 days of the event as they are notorious for not sending these out in time. If you have let us know and we will tell you what to do if they start getting stroppy.

Ultimately the Equalities Act may well be your friend here and Ibis should have got this cancelled, but as I said CEL aren't honest so they may well have ignored their employers anyway.

It is not too late to ask Ibis to intervene but look out the letters and NTK first and tell us about that and then we can tell you the next step.

[Bazzerman]

Thank you for your reply.

I have attached the 2nd and 3rd communications from CEL.

The first is at my sons' house and I am endeavouring to get it tonight.

I noticed that the PCN date on PCN "reminder"(pcn2 attached) states that the PCN issue date was the 22/1/16.

My "offence" was Christmas Day so counting the 14 working days I understand which they should have sent this would be the 16th or 17th of January.

Assuming the PCN issue date on the form which my son has is also 22/1/16 am I correct in assuming that they are outside the time limit? I was done by ANPR, not a windscreen ticket.

I went to the Ibis hotel today and the manager said that as it had been escalated to "legal services" he could not cancel it.

Apparently there is an option on his computer at the hotel which allows him to do this if before legal services are involved.

He said that typing in my PCN number nothing came up which means that i have to contact CEL. He also asked me for proof of the passenger. I only have the Ibis and the house where I took her over the Xmas period.

I went there today, but although the houseowner remembered me she didn't want to give me the name of her friend.

This lady is in her 80s so I presume that she was worried

She did take my name and the name of the manager at the Ibis and said that she will ring her friend but due to her health she couldn't guarantee that she would ring the Ibis.

Hoping for the best regarding her.

Thanks everybody for your help.

Just a quick note-The date on the 1st PCN was the same as the reminder. I have calculated the 14 working days like this:

Offence 25/12/15. The 14 working days would be as follows (xmas holiday remember) 28,29,30 of December.Then to January 4,5,6,7,8,11.12.13.14.15,18,

The PCN issue date was 22/1/16 so I understand that they were too late with the PCN?

Any comments will be most welcomed.

 

 

2016-04-11 cel OUTSTANDING dEBT £140.pdf 2016-01-22 CEL final reminder for PCN 201512-25.pdf

[ericsbrother]

Usual CEL,

they get it wrong and ignore the law but chanced their arm to con you out of money anyway.

 

 

Note they have also bumped up the amount they are asking for without reason as well.

They do sue people and then add another few hundred quid to the bill for no reason

either but they lose EVERY defended claim and have seen the inside of a criminal courtroom but it doesnt put them off.

 

If you want to respond

just a short note saying that

"they have not created a keeper liability under the POFA so are invited to go ...themselves.

Any legal action will be vigourously resisted and a full costs order sought as the claim is clearly vex"

[Bazzerman]

I responded to CEL with the letter and as i did not hear from them I assumed they had stopped harassing me.

But I have now received this

I intend to write one letter, similar to the CEL letter which I sent them as advised in an earlier in a thread,

asking for a breakdown if they intend to go ahead with Court.

Would this be the best thing to do ?

Thanks to everyone for your help.

 

 

2016-05-17 ZZPS.pdf appeal.pdf

[ericsbrother]

you were unwise to send the lengthy and mostly irrelevent letter you did

but getting a demand from a toothless debt collector is nothing to worry about.

You can use it as lining for your budgie cage but whatever you do dont respond to it.

 

You must understand something,

they dont have to give a breakdown,

that was the main decision of the Beavis,

 

 

the company only has to make a charge that is "not unconscionable" and that £100 is not unreasonable.

 

If you had stuck to the short foff letter to CEL they would have realised that you knew they were trying their luck

but now they have you down as a possible source of income so dont encourage them any more..

[steveod]

The do have to show its "not unconscionable", not unreasonable AND commercially justifiable which is dependant on the situation in the specific car park in question.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 adds another hurdle to their claim which wasn't part of the UTCCR. Charges under the CRA "grey" list now have to be proportionate.

1. is the £100 proportionate to what the council charge for penalty charges in the nearby car parks eg is £100 proportionate to £50? - I don't think so

2. in a pay & display is the £100 proportionate to £3 that should have been paid by a driver and wasn't? - I don't think so

definition of proportionate

correct or suitable in size, amount, or degree when considered in relation to something else

[silverfox1961]

Hi

Please forgive me if I am confused but on the reminder letter it says:

date of offence 25/12/2015 and PCN issue date of 22/01/2016

I am assuming this was an ANPR ticket (nothing attached to the windscreen) and as such they are out of time.

They had 14 days to contact the keeper for the drivers details.

Also, they haven't allowed a grace period and ignored the fact that your passenger was disabled.

I would love them going to court with this but I suspect they won't bother and all they will do is send more letters. Muppets!

[ericsbrother]

The supreme court made it very clear that in the case they were looking at you were agreeing to a contractual charge by parking in a manner that created a separate contract to the one on the P&D and that the signage was clear about this.

They also said that their decision trumped the CRA 2015 and even parliament could not undo this decision without primary legislation.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that the same applies in all cases BUT I would avoid any argument that looks at the parking co's costs as they will think that they are onto a winner as they are more likely to defeat that particular thread than they are when you say they dont have the right to claim against the keeper for example and can prove it.

Silverfox makes the point clear about this and that is why I say that you cease any further communication as it will only be used against you and will encourage them to try their luck