Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

CEL 2017 ANPR PCN - Burger King, West Forest Gate, Wokingham, RG40 2AT - First contact 32 months since 'breach of terms'


Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

Today I've received a 'LETTER BEFORE ACTION - CLAIM FOR DEBT' from Civil Enforcement Limited for a supposed breach of parking 32 months ago. They haven't provided me any evidence to my address which I've lived at and been registered to for the past 24 months. 

 

They have sent me a form to reply to which is asking for name, address, contact number, email and to comment whether I owe the debt, i am getting debt advice and another section where i can ask them for further documents or information. 

 

At this stage I cannot confirm that I had parked at this premises. Being a Burger King I have visited with the children in the past when I lived in Wokingham.

 

Seeking advice of next steps please?

 

 

1 Date of the infringement

04/12/2017

 

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

Unknown

 

3 Date received

03/08/2020
 

 

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

Unknown
 

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

None provided
 

 

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

No
 

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

N/A
 

 

7 Who is the parking company?

Civil Enforcement Limited
 

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]

Burger King, West Forest Gate, Wokingham, RG40 2AT
 

 

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

None

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

send them a single letter telling them that you deny that you were involved and that you won't be paying anything that you will see them in court.

Send them a second letter separate containing an sar

 

Keep the first letter short. Minimum narrative

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your prompt response. Do you have reference to the SAR document template? Thank you!

 

But also, if I ask for a DSAR, I think need to provide them with my contact details or shall I just input my address which they posted to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL 2017 ANPR PCN - Burger King, West Forest Gate, Wokingham, RG40 2AT - First contact 32 months since 'breach of terms'

pers i'd send them an ericsbrother snotty insulting letter in many like threads here already.

 

and yes an SAR. but do that separate. click SAR

 

you are lucky they sent the PAPLOC to your present address.

their typical game is to send everything to your old address

and attain a backdoor CCJ.

 

dx

 

 

 

  • Like 2

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

ericsbrother is a familiar member here in the parking forum

use our search top right 

 

snotty insulting letter CEL

 

PAPLOC.....you have received one.

pre action protocol letter of claim

and the reply pack.

 

but you dont use any of it

but you must reply within 30 days

 

plenty of CEL threads here to read up on.

  • Like 1

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

How's this?


To whom it concerns, I am in receipt of your letter dated the 3rd August 2020 and have noted its contents.

 

You state that I should consider this to be a letter before action. Unfortunately for you I cannot accept this shoddily thrown together piece of tripe to be a LBA as it fails miserably to come anywhere near an LBA as required under the revised Civil Procedure Regulations and so would expect a court to summarily dismiss any claim later made by you or your client on that basis.

  

So, to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I deny that any monies are owed to Civil Enforcement Limited by myself. The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain.

 

Your fondness for misquoting the decision of PE v Beavis makes it look like you have never read the full judgement but like the other ‘rent a threat’ see it as a panacea for justifying any old codswallop you care to trot out.

 

It’s not wise or in the interests of Civil Enforcement Limited to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action, and I shall seek a full cost recovery order for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief, you're quick!

 

Looks good to me.  Just cut out the little bit "or your client" as the original letter was to solicitors.  Address it to "Dear Ashley".  Personally I would add at the end of your first line "Note that my new address is xxxxx" just to make absolutely sure they don't issue a court claim to your old address.  Presumably you didn't get the initial rubbish they sent out due to moving.

 

Both for this letter and the SAR get free Certificates of Posting from the post office. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehehe, i dont like to sit on things!!!

So I've made the changes you suggested.

 

On another forum, they advised emailing all of this to not waste any further of my time.

Do you have any objections to emailing this letter and the DSAR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a hell of a long time ago, but do you still have proof of payment to Burger King on bank statements?  If so, as well as the snotty letter and the SAR, it might still be worth writing to Burger King (CEO level) pointing out that you were a genuine customer and you demand they tell CEL to cancel.   You went there with your kids and didn't expect demands for £160 (or however much it is) as a result of the lot of you spending money there.  

 

The problem with e-mail is that, if the matter ever did come to court, they could e-mail you their documentation one minute before the deadline and catch you out.  That's why we always recommend snail mail with the fleecers so they can't do that.

 

By all means e-mail Burger King though.

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly unlikely that I'd have any trace of this i've been with 3 banks since then and no doubt i would have used cash and not kept a simple BK receipt! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSAR Written, Snotty Letter written... 

Awaiting ink... will post tomorrow and update this thread in due course!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sar hidden

 

what does it say in red at the top??

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

Never use email but letter looks good, Civil Entrapment are a greedy shower.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to edit that response as it was sent to a bunch of lawyers acting as debt collectors. so drop the bit about rentathreats.

I would add the salutation

Dear Ashley,

it is no use trying to hide, we all know it is you writing this garbage.....

 

 

reason for thi is that a person well known in parking world isnt listed as having a controlling interest in the company contrary to Company Law

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAR reply should include the initial letters they sent you, telling you what you did "wrong".

 

Hopefully the snotty letter will produce a deafening silence from them.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep any documents or evidence though in case Ashley is daft enough to send a Claimform next year when he thinks you have forgotten about it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Hi Community, me again!

So they responded to my DSAR I sent on 18th Aug, They responded on the 9th Sept. They haven't responded to my snotty letter yet.

 

In summary of the DSAR.

Offence date: 4th Dec 2017
From: 04/12/17 16:16:43 to 17:29:40
Offence: Exceeded maximum 60 minutes free parking

Fine: £100 or £60 within 14 days

First letter date: 02/07/2018

First PCN letter date: 02/07/2018

(this is 8 months post offence date)

Second letter date: 05/09/2018 (wrong address)

Letter stating price has gone up to £140 and if not paid, will be passed to collection agents.

 

Third letter date: 31/01/2020 (wrong address)

ZZPS Limited debt collector. Price has now gone to £170.

 

Fourth letter date: 14/02/2020

ZZPS Limited debt collector. Price remains at £170

Fifth and final letter which was sent to my correct address:  03/08/2020
CEL, letter before court action 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are NOT Fines,.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

no at this stage you should be finding the original planning permission granted by the council that wont say 1hrs free parking

it will be 2 or 3 hrs.

and no-one can change that.

also check CEL have been granted planning permission for their signs, anpr cameras and the poles both are on too.

they wont!!

 

 

get up on the relevant councils webportal and get the info.

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

Ok, upon a postcode search and location search 'burger king' and 'west forest gate' on the councils website there is nothing in relation to CEL or any parking planning applications. I will contact the council. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...