Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
    • Hi Mango,   Please don't post in large blocks of text as it's far harder to read. Spacing added for you in the post above.   Please give brief answers to UncleB's Q's above so we can better assess your case, thanks.
    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Civil enforcement LTD - The Quays, Salford M50 3SQ **CANC'd by Water Sports Centre manager**


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 593 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I had a job interview at a Water Sports Centre and parked on their car park.

 

The sign on entering said “For Centre Users Only” and had no information beyond that so I never bothered digesting any other signs (given one expects no ambiguity on signage) although on another I noticed another sign with big letters saying “WATERSPORTS CENTRE CUSTOMER PARKING ONLY” but didn’t read the smaller letters underneath (which I subsequently have) which read “You must obtain a parking permit at reception” and then smaller letters saying you will be subject to a fine if not.

 

I did ask inside if it was okay to park there and was told “Yes, as long as you are a centre user”, but nothing about getting a permit.

 

Not long after I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd. I rang the receptionist of the company I had an interview with, who said I should have signed an iPad at the time (thanks for not mentioning it) and added that we had to deal directly with Civil Enforcement Ltd.

 

So I appealed online, saying I was a centre user because I was having a job interview there, and that as far as I was aware, as a consumer when there are conflicting signs you are entitled to use the most advantageous to you, which in my case would be the sign on entry that had no mention of a fine or getting a permit. I’ve received a letter back, which I have attached. Any feedback would be great, thanks.  

 

pcn.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you fill this in please to give the guys enough information to advise you?

 

Also, can you tell us what you said in your appeal because it sounds as if you identified yourself as the driver. If this happens to you again, please pop in here and ask before you start contacting people.

 

I expect the guys will be along later.

 

HB

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • honeybee13 changed the title to Civil enforcement LTD - The Quays, Salford M50 3SQ

"Is this car park just for the water sports people or are there other businesses that use the same one?" I'm unsure but the water sports comes under 'Salford Community Leisure' and the job I was applying for was with Salford Community Leisure.

 

car parking.pdf

 

1 Date of the infringement

  

16/05/2019

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

 

The date of the original Notice to Driver/PCN was 21/05/2019.

 

Note that this was sent to my partner, then we sent the appeal saying it was my job interview (I’m aware now that we shouldn’t have named a name, whoops). The issue date of the new Notice to Driver/PCN is

 

11/06/2019.

 

3 Date received

 

Unsure because we have just come back from seeing family, so opened it yesterday (3rd).

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

 

I don’t see “2012” written anywhere, so will post the back of the PCN after uploading this (front page already posted, along with Response to Representation letter)

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

 

They have a picture of the car coming in and going out, as seen on the PCN. I will post the signage after uploading this.

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]

 

Yes.

 

In the first instance we sent this…

 

“Appealing PCN Number: 1968837105

 

During the time that my car was parked in the Watersports Centre’s parking lot I was at a job interview in that centre. Here is a copy of the email sent me following my application:

XXXX

I am pleased to inform you that you have been selected for an interview for the above mentioned post.

The interview details are as follows:

Date:     Thursday 16th May 2019

At:          Helly Hansen Watersports Centre

Time:     Interview task 3.30pm followed by interview @ 4.00pm

 Please arrive 15 minutes prior to the interview task, the interview will be approx. 45 minutes long.

 If you are unable to attend this interview, please contact me immediately.

 Kind regards,

 

XXXX
Management Support Officer to          
Mark Chew – Director of Leisure        
Garry Bateman – Head of Sport

When arriving at the centre I read the sign that was next to the barrier, which reads:

 

SALFORD WATERSPORTS CENTRE

For Centre Users Only

Vehicles left at owners risk

Leisure in Salford

 

Given I was a centre user, this sign gave me permission to park. Apparently there are other signs with different messages on, which I didn’t read because there should be no ambiguity with signage, and having gone back to look I see that there are three different signs with different information on.

As a consumer when there are conflicting signs then you are entitled to use the most advantageous to you. More to the point, I did double check inside the building that I was okay to park there and was told yes.  Nobody mentioned, as I have since learned, that one has to sign an iPad.

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

Yes. They sent a fresh PCN with my name on it, and also a Response to Representation, which I have posted.

 

7 Who is the parking company?

 

Civl Enforcement Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

 

Helly Hansen Water Sports Centre, The Quays, Salford, M50 3SQ

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

 

It says can appeal to POPLA

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as you were invited to be there by the owner or occupier of the car park is is damed lazy of them not to tell CEL to cancel the charge.

The NTK fails to create ANY lisbility under the POFA so identifying yourself as driver has done you no harm but CEL wont care about the niceties of the law and nor will POPLA.

 

Did you get the job?

If not then you have nothing to lose by having a go at the management of the leisure centre for failing to enter your details for you when you enquired at the desk.

as far as contracts with CEL go, you were a user so any other bits dont count, you were invited to e there and the reception offered terms that were superior to the signage as far as contracts go so CEL are on to a loser in the long run.

i woud be asking the senior manager at the place again to intercede and make it clear that reception  gave you the duff info when you asked so they carry the liability for getting CEL to cancel as you followed THEIR instruction.

If they still wont play ball then unusually I would seggest an appeal to POPLA, not because they will make the right decision but because it will cost CEL and they may decide not to fight the appeal anyways.

we will help you with that appeal but soe piccies of the signage will help us enormously

Edited by ericsbrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't get the job despite being the most qualified. Perhaps a case of 'wh'o one knows, not' wha't. I shall contact management, as advised, and let you know the outcome. Thanks all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried contacting the person who interviewed me with no luck, so left a message for her.

 

Today I literally went to the centre itself (being careful to park elsewhere lol) and spoke to the duty manager.

She said that my message had been passed on to her with a note asking her to contact the parking people and say I had a right to park. She said she will do this on Monday, so hopefully it will get sorted.

 

Even so, should I prepare a POPLA appeal just in case?

According to Civil Enforcement I have until Tuesday to launch the appeal (not sure if they mean midnight Monday or any time Tuesday), and since there's no guarantee that the manager's efforts won't fall on deaf ears, or even that she will contact them, maybe I should launch an appeal regardless?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no ignore their stupid timelines.

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have supremacy of contract.  They cant touch you.  PPC dont care though. Theyll lie bluff and cheat simply to get money from you by any means. All the communication so far is automatic. Its likely nobody at the one man band has ever looked at your details.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

getting the place you visited to kick CEL is the main thing here, thye caused the problem. Anyways I bet that the landowner didnt sign anything but some lesser management and that will undo CEL's authority to be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusion....

 

Good news. After a few reminders on my part the centre's manager finally got hold of Civil Enforcement to ask them to cancel the fine, which they apparently did (I have nothing from Civil Enforcement about that, just the centre's manager's email today saying they have cancelled it). So thanks everyone for your wonderful advice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine??

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Civil enforcement LTD - The Quays, Salford M50 3SQ **CANC'd by Water Sports Centre manager**

Keep that email safe.  Ppcs rarely ever admit fault and may try to chase in a few months or even a year or two hoping that you don't have any paperwork so they can  try and chase you unchallenged.

Edited by renegadeimp

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/07/2019 at 06:20, renegadeimp said:

Keep that email safe.  Ppcs rarely ever admit fault and may try to chase in a few months or even a year or two hoping that you don't have any paperwork so they can  try and chase you unchallenged.

Will do! Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good for you for not accepting the first thing you were told.

This direct route works well with a lot of supermarkets etc that have control over their own land but less so with retail parks where the shops are just tenants and suffer as much as their customers by the stupidity of their landlord's contract with a bunch of bandits.

 

as said, keep the email safe so you can ram it down CEL's throat if they try their luck in the future.

 

It does happen on occasion when they run out of current targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...