CEL PCN 08/15, claimform received

[Vishal Gurung]

Hi

This is my first post so please bare with me.

 

My wife was issued a Private parking ticket for Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage by CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD at The Parade Firmley High street GU167HY so I appealed but I got refused and in few weeks I forgot about it, as I got busy with my work and young baby.

 

Few weeks ago a debt collection letter came through my door asking for £200 double the amount of actual ticket so I replied but there response just got worse and now I have letter from their solicitors asking for £236 or they obtain a County court Judgement.

 

Here are my details:-

 

PCN issued- 17/08/15 on the PCN it reads vechle parked from 1500.10 hrs to 1625:42 hrs , the actual ticket reads 1513 hrs to 1713 hrs they have a 10 mins window to obtain ticket. £60 for 3 mins or after 14 days £100 for 3 min.

I have the actual ticket and all the letter we exchanged with different parties.

 

My defence:-

1) Discrimination against my wife as she was with our 2 months old baby, she was willing to pay parking charges and did paid but was penalised for being few minutes late just because she was not fast enough to handle her young baby.

 

2) The amount charged was unfair and is not the true representation of the cost incurred by the owner or company running the business.

 

3) I was not provided with a case or reference number which would have allowed me to appeal to BPA after Civil Enforcement Ltd.

 

 

Shall I defend my case or just pay and end this matter, which I was thinking about but I just feel that I have been used to extract money , to me its unethical and my inner feeling wound not allow to give in to these cowboys.

 

Please help me to defend my case I would happily donate the parking fee amount to this forum if we can beat these cowboys.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Vishal Gurung

[ericsbrother]

the letter from the debt collection people can be ignored as they have no interest in the matter.

 

 

Their adding extra charges is typical of these crooks as they think you will be frightened into thinking they are like bailiffs and have some powers to force you to pay when they dont.

 

CEL are crooks so wont want to have to appear in any court.

 

In short the signage is an "invitation to treat" and not a contract.CEL are unlikely to have followed the protocols of the PoFA

so there will be no keeper liability anyway.

 

If the latest letter is from a solicitor you could write to them and state

" no contract existed between myself and your client so there cannot be a breach to be a cause of action for a civil claim.

Please inform your client that any such claim will be vigourously defended as being vexed"

That will create a paper trail if nothing else.

 

 

The solicitor is only acting as another dca at this stage and will earn their £15 whether you pay or not.

This response will put off CEL spending more money just to lose even more money at court.

[Vishal Gurung]

Wright Hassall LLP

Olympus Avenue

Leamington Spa

Warwickshire

CV34 6BF

 

Date: 21/05/16

 

Ref No - 1237742

 

 

 

Dear Tim Hawker

 

I am replying in reference to your letter sent to me on 16/08/16 in connection with the recovery of the alleged debt, no contract existed between myself and your client so there cannot be a breach to be a cause of action for civil claim.

 

Please inform your client that any such claims will be vigorously defended as being vexed.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Mr Vishal Gurung

 

Should I add anything else or this will do.

 

also I was thinking of writing one last letter to the company to cancel the PCN , please advice me on this one as i have read that some people got success by rewriting.

I will post the letter I am intending to send to the company

[Vishal Gurung]

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

Horton House

Exchange Flags

Liverpool

L2 3 PF

 

PCN Ref No – 9621357549

Vehicle Reg – CA56WWU

Issue date 27/08/2015

 

Date 21/05/2016

 

Greetings

 

My wife was issued a PCN for Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage at The Parade Firmley High street GU16 7HY , I appealed but with some misunderstanding of the actual basis in which your company issued the PCN but my appeal was refused stating that my response was late which in my understanding is not true as I have written to you on the 05/09/15 well under your stated date of appeal and on the refusal letter I didn’t receive case verification code which would have allowed me to appeal to BPA.

Few weeks ago I received a debt collection letter by ZZPS asking for £200 double the amount of actual ticket so I replied but there responded with similar letter and now I have received a letter from solicitors asking me to pay for £236 or warning they will obtain a county court Judgement.

 

I believe there has been a misjudgement in handling of this case, Following are few facts I would like to explain.

 

1) My wife was with our 2 month old baby while she attended a dental clinic near your Parking Facility and she was willing to pay parking charges and did paid but was penalised for being few minutes late to obtain ticket because she was not fast enough to handle her young baby.

 

2) The amount charged was unfair and is not the true representation of the cost incurred by the owner or your company. PCN reading From 15:00:10 To 16:25:42 actual ticket reading From 15:13 To 17:13. She overpaid he stay in the car park by 35 minutes.

 

I strongly hope that you will agree with our view by cancelling the PCN and let the common sense prevail as my wife did not had any intention to cause your business any loss or harm in any shape or form and also she should not be discriminated for bearing a young baby.

 

I look forward to hear from you.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Vishal Gurung

[ericsbrother]

DO NOT WRITE TO THEM AT ALL, just the letter to the solicitors is enough, the letter to CEL is just garbage and will drop you in it.

[ericsbrother]

didnt mean to leave to post s abruptly but if you send that letter they will be able to identify the driver and the keeper and circumvent the PoFA. The reasons for the car being there are immaterial unless it was stolen or you were ordered to park there by a police officer, anything else is mitigation and not worth a light when it comes to contract law.

You must read a slection of the other posts to get a feel of what is the best procedures to follow.

[Vishal Gurung]

Greetings

 

There has been a recent development on my case , I have just received County Court claim Form stating the claim of total £328.54 which I don't admit and wish to defend.

 

Any help or guidance will be much appreciated.

 

Thanks for all your support.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

So we can advise you, could you type up the particulars of claim [POCs] or scan the form, minus any identifying details please?

 

What is the date on the top right of the form?

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

OK we need to know what they are claiming and why. Sometimes they just put that they are going to supply the details within 14 days. If this is so them a complaint to the court is a must and ask for the claim to be struck out as having no locus.

 

We also need to know all about th place where she was parked and what the signs at the entrance to the car park say plus any extra signs in the car park or at the machine that are different to the entrance. Also measure the signs so we know exactly how big they are and thus how big the writing on it is.

I cannot see any signs at the entrance to the rear of any of the premises along frimley high st so that will effectively destroy any claim that there is a contract to consider.

 

so when you acknowledge the claim you tick box saying you defend in full/deny thier claim.

as for a defence you can use bullet points for the moment and I would suggest you start with the following.

 

the claim is denied as there is no keeper liability under the POFA as CEL failed to adhere to its provisions to create one.

 

there was no contract offered so there cannot be a breach of contract

in any case, the driver paid the full prescribed fee for the parking period so the claim is in itself without foundation.

 

CEL have failed to use the dispute resolution process that it is obliged to use by its ATA and so the claim is vexed.

 

that will do for starters, you can add more later if need be

Edited July 26, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Vishal Gurung]

Here is the particulars of claim

 

outstanding debt and damages date 17/08/15 -description ref xxx-amount- 236.00 due date-17/08/15

 

Claimant claims the sums of 253.54 for outstanding debt and damages including 17.54 interest pursuant to s.69 of the county court act 1984 rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 21/07/16 same rate to judgement or sooner payment daily rate to judgement -0.05.

total debt and inters due 253.54.

 

i will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

 

i found these statement in other posts and intending ti use them as my defence.

 

Defence against Claim no xxx

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of xxx.

 

2. The Defendant’s spouse is unable to admit or deny the precise times she parked in REAR of 1-14THE PARADE FRIMLEY HIGH STREET FRIMLEY CAMBERLEY GU16 7HY as she has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

4. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £60 and later £100 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a delay in obtaining parking ticket; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and © the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

 

5. The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist is delayed in obtaining parking ticket by ten seconds or ten years.

 

6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £60 and later £100 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short delayed in obtaining parking ticket or overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose.

 

7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

 

Mr Vishal Gurung

 

Date:-

Enclosed:-

1x copy of the parking ticket

1x copy of the PCN

Edited July 27, 2016 by honeybee13
Identifiers removed

[ericsbrother]

Their claim is rubbish but they use this as a method af frightening people into paying. The amount claimed is likewise rubbish and against CPR 27 rules.

Your defence should also be binned and start again.

1. No contract was ever offered by way of signage at the site because there isnt any therfore no contract was formed to be broken.

2.The plaintiff does not have the right to offer contract nor enter into them because it does not have planning permission for any signage and equipment at the site under the town and Country Planning Act 2007

3 the plaintiff does not have the right o offer and enter into contracts because there has been no assignment of the right to do this by the landlord of the premises.

 

for your point 2 it is irrelevent, by adding this you are inviting them to discontinue suing you and sue your wife instead. Everything you have chosen from point 4 downwards is now defeated by the Beavis decision, the parking co doesnt have to prove its costs nor losses. Dont forget, this is just the first stage, you will have plenty of time to find loads of other cases that are relevant to yours and dig out other things to beef up and pad out your arguments.

I bet they discontinue when you submit a defence, they usually do, it is a numbers game. They will have to pay more money for the allocation and if they lose, your expenses as well as their own so they like to invent a larger sum and 75% of people pay up rather than fight