Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done on your victory!  👏   You must have a magic touch, it's extremely rare that the PPCs accept an appeal.
    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • The White House highlights the upcoming offer of free trips in the US by the ride-hailing firms. View the full article
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

CEL ANPR PCN Claimform - Tily Carpentry Yate Bristol


Recommended Posts

Name of the Claimant : Civil Enforcement Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors: No Stated

 

Date of issue – 15 March 2021

 

Date for AOS - 3 April 2021

 

Date to submit Defence - 16 April 2021

 

What is the claim for – 

1.claim for monies relating to a parking charge for parking in a private car park managed by the claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs).

 

2, Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use.

 

3. ANPR cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.

 

4. Debt + damages claimed the sum of 182.00. Violation date: 10/01/2020 Time in: 14:29 Time out: 14:57 PCN Ref: xxxxxx Car Registration No. xxxxxx Car Park:- Tily Carpentry Total Due: 182.00 (Ref:www.ce-service.co.uk or Tel:01158225020)

 

5.The claimant claims the sum of 199.03 for monies relating to a parking charge per above including 17.03 interest pursuant to S.69 of the county court acts 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to - 12/03/21 Same rate to judgment or (sooner) payment Daily rate to judgment- 0.04 Total debt and interest due- 199.03

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

Amount Claimed: 199.03

court fees : 25.00

legal rep fees : 50.00

Total Amount : 274.03

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The work you're putting in to fight CEL is superb.  FWIW, the last three times CEL took Caggers to court, CEL got a good kicking, so they are eminently beatable.   However, a cautionary tale

As you are not liable for this PCN I think that we could try and head this off at the pass to coin an old wetern film cliche. To save the time of yourself,  CEL and the Court you could send a Cea

Posted Images

Could you please fill in the questions below. They do like to add on the charges don't they-though it does work in your favour if they ever go to court.  I notice they haven't said how you breached their stupid rules-did they tell you on their PCN? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, yes the penalty look very disproportionate to anything I've seen before! 182.00 for 28 minutes and according to my son who this applies to was legally parked to use a cake shop.

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN - Tily Carpentry

its not a penalty and its not an illegal/legal parking issue ....that would be via magistrates

this is a county court claim for supposedly breaking some imaginary contract when the driver entered the private land.

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked.
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.

 get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count].....

 

…………..

 

there are numerous CEL claimform threads here ....they never get everything right.

get reading up.

 

you'll soon get the idea.

 

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

No they have not stated what rule he has supposed to of breached

 

Okay DX working on it right now

 

CPR 31.14 and AOS completed

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent that was quick. As it was one of your children driving it is important not to let CEL know who was driving and hopefully CEL has messed up their documentation so there is no keeper liability. So if you could please fill out the following questions we will find out-

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get on to that first thing tomorrow, thanks for the help and support

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN Claimform - Tily Carpentry

also find out if he got a letter of claim about 4 weeks ago too.

 

collect any/all paperwork from him to date, bar  the claimform pack, and scan it all up bothsides of everything to ONE multipage PDF

 

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

Okay DX straight on to it tomorrow

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately all correspondence sent have been thrown away so He is unable to answer these questions accurately.

 

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

(must be received within 14 days from the Incident)

 

1 Date of the infringement

10/01/2020
2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]

Not Sure

3 Date received

Not Sure
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]

Not Sure
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

Yes

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]

Tily Carpentry Yate Bristol

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

BPA
 

 

unfortunately all other letters have been thrown in the bin

 

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN Claimform - Tily Carpentry Yate Bristol

The work you're putting in to fight CEL is superb.  FWIW, the last three times CEL took Caggers to court, CEL got a good kicking, so they are eminently beatable.

 

However, a cautionary tale.  We recently had a member who was building up evidence to support his son-in-law, who was being sued (not a private parking matter, another type of legal dispute).  This Cagger put in a huge effort - but once the son-in-law found himself alone in a legal setting he was out of his depth and pretty much crumbled.

 

If CEL do take this to court, it will be your son who will have to appear.  There's no point you being brilliantly sussed about the matter, he needs to deal with his own case.

 

He's already scored an own goal by throwing away the paperwork.  CEL often can't be bothered to follow the law when they send out their demands, but we can't be sure because we haven't got the letters.  He also presumably ignored a Letter Before Claim and might well have been able to stop CEL at that stage.

  • Like 1

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

Brilliant information and something we need to take on board should it go to court but I would accompany my son as a Mckenzie friend so hopefully avoiding the same mistake. I've asked him to tidy his flea pit of a flat and try to locate any letters he may not have thrown away but I'm not holding up much hope.

 

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WS

they don't know who was driving correct?

do you drive?

 

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
Posted (edited)

I was thinking the very same thing as this was back in January 2020 and he shared his car with the girlfriend, I was thinking of writing to them and asking them for photo evidence who was the driver. I know from reading the information they can only obtain from the DVLA is who is the registered keeper but as stated on the V5 form this is not proof of ownership. I'm not sure if this will work?

 

Yes I do drive

Edited by webbscatering

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

na you missed the point..and no they dont have to prove who was driving nor should they ever be put to that proof or else it gets VERY messy legally which even these people that tout themselves for +£300 a pop don't go there ever. either.

 

you could of stated you were the driver

then the court claim would be against you...

too far gone now.

in parking matters Mckenzie friend's are normally more harm than good.

 

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

Good advice thank you

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is not to reveal who was driving but to create doubt who was driving. CEL are particularly poor with their PCNs at creating keeper liability which is a shame if your son has thrown away what could be vital evidence. [CEL frequently don't adhere to the correct wording necessary in PoFA to allow keeper liability or they send off the NTK to late to comply with the Act] It is not fatal since they will have to include all correspondence in their WS or perhaps with their CPR request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the advice it very much appreciated I'm just hoping the boy comes good and finds some paperwork for us

 

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see what CPR comes up with.

 

If CEL don't reply then he can SAR them.

 

As Lookinforinfo says, they will have to include this documentation in their WS, but it would be useful to know before.

 

 

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

it would be interesting FTMDave but reading through previous posts on the forum it doesn't look like they will be forthcoming with that info, in the meantime I'm also hoping the lad can find some sort of correspondence from CEL. Thanks for the advice

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they will have too at ws stage else they will lose if they don't.

 

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

understood cheers dx

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Surprise Surprise CEL have complied with our requests and have sent the paperwork, without having to scan the bundle of letters what in particular are we looking for? also we have until the 16th April to file our defence,

Webbscatering ;)

LLoyds TSB Started 13/9/06 - Paid In Full 15/3/2007 - Settled

 

NatWest - Started 8/9/06 - 2nd January 2007 - Settled

Virgin Media - Started 8/10/07 - Settled

GE Money - Started 28/02/08 - Settled

British Credit Trust - S.A.R - Prelim sent

Enterprise Inns - court papers served

Natwest - S.A.R - Prelim Sent

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets not chance missing something important eh?

best to scan both sides of everything up to one multipage PDF

 

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

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...