Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[electron99]

A127 - sorry, I'm still finding your last post a tad confusing- not saying it's wrong, just I can't understand it.

The latest from Which Legal is....

 

It is correct that private parking is governed by contract law and not criminal law. There is no right to park on private land but if you do park on private land you agree to be bound by any terms and conditions that may be laid out in any signs that appear on the land, as long these signs are clearly visible.

The contract will exist between the driver that parked the vehicle and the landowner/parking company. Accordingly if they were to pursue you for the fine and issued a claim the courts a Judge would have to be satisfied, on the evidence, that you had parked the car. If you choose not to pay the fine then the PPC may instruct a debt collection company to seek payment and may place a negative reference on your credit rating.

 

P.s If they actually use the word 'fine', I would challenge them on this as well.

 

In view of the above if you require further advice please check what signs, if any, there are in the car park , what they say and also where they are positioned if you require further advice.

 

** I have asked about the fact that the 'fine' is levied against the driver - NOT the registered keeper.

BUT - they seem to be saying that, notwithstanding that, they can levy a fine of £120 for overstaying, because by parking there, those terms were agreed to.

-- that bit makes sense --

 

I await their reply, and look forward to any on here.

 

Cheers

 

My experience of Which legal services (in a none parking area) is not very good to say the least. The lawyers they employ have to have a litle bit of knowledge on everything, ie. jack of all trades, master of none.

 

Read the countless posts on this and other forums, and you will see that the correct course of action is to ignore.

 

Where a PPC has gone to court, e.g Excel, they have lost because the judge has deemed the charge of £120+ a penalty, which in law they cannot enforce.

 

As to Which saying a debt collecting agency can put a negative report on your credit file - words fail me.

The creditor would have to go to court,win, and you not to pay within 30 days, for an adverse entry to be put on your file.

 

Personally I would challenge Which on this, and ask for your money back.

 

The advice I had from Which legal services on a motor accident was so bad, had I not got a second opinion, I could have been into serious losses.

I asked for my money back, they refused, so I cancelled my Which subscription.

 

P.S If they actually used the word 'fine', I would challenge them on this as well.

[letshelp]

The contract will exist between the driver that parked the vehicle and the landowner/parking company.

 

Correct, and this is where most ppc's fall down by chasing the Registered keeper, who may or may not have been the driverf at the time,

 

Accordingly if they were to pursue you for the fine

 

Fine, what fine? Under what legal authority can a private company issue a fine?

 

and issued a claim the courts a Judge would have to be satisfied, on the evidence, that you had parked the car.

 

And that you clearly saw the terms and conditions on the sign, and that the sum claimed is a true refelection of their actual loss and not some figure they believe they are entitled to.

If you choose not to pay the fine

 

Still not a fine.

 

then the PPC may instruct a debt collection company to seek payment and may place a negative reference on your credit rating.

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

In view of the above if you require further advice please check what signs, if any, there are in the car park , what they say and also where they are positioned if you require further advice.

 

DON'T contact these clowns.

 

** I have asked about the fact that the 'fine' is levied against the driver - NOT the registered keeper.

BUT - they seem to be saying that, notwithstanding that, they can levy a fine of £120 for overstaying, because by parking there, those terms were agreed to.

-- that bit makes sense --

 

Only to you.

 

I await their reply, and look forward to any on here.

 

 

Cheers

regards

[Candlemaker]

Interestingly CEL only refer to 'the amount' of £120 i.e. NOT to a fine or penalty. However, the warning notices in the car park refer to 'a charge'.

 

I agree to all said above - as I say I have done 'battle' with Vinci before (by not replying) and won.

However, you have to understand the concern that people like me on the forum express - we need to be 100%. And, when you're getting advice from solicitors that contradict the advice on this forum from, with respect, people who's backgrounds/knowledge/expertise is unknown, it makes it understandable that we should query things, as many do.

 

Can someone in simple terms (backed up by statute/case law) say why it is NOT the case that:

If you park on private property, where there are multiple signs warning that parking in excess of the free period stated (3 hrs in this case) will result on a charge of £120, you will be deemed liable to have agreed to that private contract.

I'm playing 'devil's advocate' (even as the victim) by saying that by parking there, I agreed to those terms which were clearly explained?

 

Hopefully I will receive helpful, understanding replies, and none that sound like annoyance PLEASE !!

[lamma]

Dunlop v New Garage Motors

[kiptower]

its NOT backed up by statute/case law

 

its a civil invoice, NOT a fine or penalty

 

they still have to prove the driver agreed to enter in a civil agreement to take it to court

 

there is lots of information in the many threads/posts on CAG explaining why they issue threats but never go near a court, perfect example is EXCEL PARKING who have lost more than once in court when they tried the court route

[JonCris]

Has the actual owner of the land given this PC a licence to do as they wish with the land or like the hospitals have with their private parking facilities has the owner sold the land to the PC If none of these apply then they have no right to 'fine' anyone as they have no legal status to bring an action.

 

If you get harassed threaten the land owner

[Candlemaker]

ThankS Guys :~)

Lamma - Which legal say...The Dunlop case deals with the issue of penalties and in this matter, if the signs detail the fines that will be incurred, you may not be able challenge the level of the fines as they will constitute a core term of the contract.

Kiptower - by parking there, with all the warning signs detailing the charges, isn't the driver 'agreeing' by making the choice to park (devil's advocate again!)

JonCris - I don't know re rights conferred on PPC. Can't really find out as I don't want to contact anyone about this - the 'avoid contact issue'.

 

Cheers

[kiptower]

they have to prove a contract exists,

 

just because they have signs that is no proof, and if english was not your native tounge what would they claim then ?

 

many signs are not seen ( if you actually can see them ) till after you enter the car park , there is nothing actually in law to say you entered a contract , these [EDIT]'s rely on the fact the public in general dont understand their rights, as suggested have a read up on Excel Parking and what happened to them in court

 

it is NOT a true PCN or FINE, they try to get round the law by using the first letters of the term Parking Charge/Civil Notice, knowing it will decive the average person into thinking its a real PCN that the Councils issue legally

 

and if they use the words FINE or PENALTY they screw them selves because they cannot issue either

[lamma]

ThankS Guys :~)

Lamma - Which legal say...The Dunlop case deals with the issue of penalties and in this matter, if the signs detail the fines that will be incurred, you may not be able challenge the level of the fines as they will constitute a core term of the contract.

Kiptower - by parking there, with all the warning signs detailing the charges, isn't the driver 'agreeing' by making the choice to park (devil's advocate again!)

JonCris - I don't know re rights conferred on PPC. Can't really find out as I don't want to contact anyone about this - the 'avoid contact issue'.

 

Cheers

 

I don't really care what Which says especially as 'fines' cannot be part of such an alleged contract. Read the judgment yourself.

[JonCris]

ThankS Guys :~)

Lamma - Which legal say...The Dunlop case deals with the issue of penalties and in this matter, if the signs detail the fines that will be incurred, you may not be able challenge the level of the fines as they will constitute a core term of the contract.

Kiptower - by parking there, with all the warning signs detailing the charges, isn't the driver 'agreeing' by making the choice to park (devil's advocate again!)

JonCris - I don't know re rights conferred on PPC. Can't really find out as I don't want to contact anyone about this - the 'avoid contact issue'.

 

Cheers

 

 

The point is there won't be any No land owner is going a cowboy parking firm rights over their land

 

eg In the case of hospital parking the trust has 'sold' their land (the car park) to the parking firm in order to overcome this small matter thereby giving the CP firm a legal right to pursue those who breach the contract implied or otherwise

 

They have no legal standing to sue

[letshelp]

Interestingly CEL only refer to 'the amount' of £120 i.e. NOT to a fine or penalty. However, the warning notices in the car park refer to 'a charge'.!!

OK, The sum of £120 represents a penalty by the simple fact that the PPC or the landowner has not lost £120 by the Driver parking where he/she did at the time.

To show that it is not a penalty the ppc/landowner would have to show the court that £120 is the ACTUAL sum they have lost by the drivers actions.

I.E. It is a free car park - you park 20 minutes over THEIR 3 hours from their terms and conditions, they now say you owe us £120. Their actual loss is:

3 hours at 0p per hour = O

So how do they work out that if 3 hours is free that extra 20 minutes costs them £120, simple they can't so therefore it is a penalty and not enforceable.

I think you give too much credibility to, 'which legal'.

regards

[JonCris]

The point is there won't be any No land owner is going a cowboy parking firm rights over their land

 

eg In the case of hospital parking the trust has 'sold' their land (the car park) to the parking firm in order to overcome this small matter thereby giving the CP firm a legal right to pursue those who breach the contract implied or otherwise

 

They have no legal standing to sue

Unless they have a licence

[BigIan279]

Received a £238.13 "DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER" from Newlyn, on behalf of CEL, over the weekend.

 

My wife's getting "a bit anxious", but I'm still ignoring them.

 

Does anyone have experience of how long they go before giving up?

[letshelp]

Received a £238.13 "DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER"

Someone has put in the word, 'NOT', by mistake.

regards

[Zamzara]

OK, The sum of £120 represents a penalty by the simple fact that the PPC or the landowner has not lost £120 by the Driver parking where he/she did at the time.

To show that it is not a penalty the ppc/landowner would have to show the court that £120 is the ACTUAL sum they have lost by the drivers actions.

I.E. It is a free car park - you park 20 minutes over THEIR 3 hours from their terms and conditions, they now say you owe us £120. Their actual loss is:

3 hours at 0p per hour = O

So how do they work out that if 3 hours is free that extra 20 minutes costs them £120, simple they can't so therefore it is a penalty and not enforceable.

I think you give too much credibility to, 'which legal'.

regards

 

I don't agree with this reasoning. It is too close to arguing that consideration must be adequate.

 

It may be a penalty but it depends on the facts of each case; on whether the driver has breached some obligation.

 

If it's just a charge to park there it cannot be assessed for fairness. The actual loss for breach would then be the amount that was owed, but unpaid. I know this isn't the usual PPC scenario, but it's one I'm increasingly seeing, presumably as they are being forced to tighten up their behaviour by better awareness.

 

I think JonCris's approach is something to look at, as in the case of merely agreeing to pay for parking the PPC must provide consideration, i.e. the right to park, and some seem to expressly deny this by referring to "your wrongful parking" or similar.

 

But it's not enough to just say they're charging a lot so it must be a penalty. People are allowed to charge a lot for things, and the amount of the charge cannot be assessed as being too high.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Zamzara

[letshelp]

It may be a penalty but it depends on the facts of each case; on whether the driver has breached some obligation.

 

Even if the driver has breached an 'obligation' that does not give a private company the right to impose a fine or a penalty.

If it's just a charge to park there it cannot be assessed for fairness.

 

I agree, but usually the parking is free, so who are the private company that can then claim sums up to and even more than £120.

 

The actual loss for breach would then be the amount that was owed, but unpaid. I know this isn't the usual PPC scenario, but it's one I'm increasingly seeing, presumably as they are being forced to tighten up their behaviour by better awareness.

 

The actual loss for breach is the actual cost to the ppc, not some maid up figure.

 

I think JonCris's approach is something to look at, as in the case of merely agreeing to pay for parking the PPC must provide consideration, i.e. the right to park, and some seem to expressly deny this by referring to "your wrongful parking" or similar.

 

But it's not enough to just say they're charging a lot so it must be a penalty. People are allowed to charge a lot for things, and the amount of the charge cannot be assessed as being too high.

 

Yes, but when they threaten to sue they are not allowed to make a profit from litigation in this instance. £120 represents considerable profit otherwise the ppc would be out of business.

regards

[Al27]

If it's just a charge to park there it cannot be assessed for fairness

 

I would say the burden on the person making the offer to prove unequivical acceptance by the other party would be increased if the charge was unusually high for such a service.

 

But it's not enough to just say they're charging a lot so it must be a penalty. People are allowed to charge a lot for things, and the amount of the charge cannot be assessed as being too high

 

True, so you have to look at the actual wording of the contract. There are few car parks that charge £120 an hour, but plenty that have a time limit and thus charge £120 over and above that limit. But then if the £120 was a fee for a service, how can there be an offer if the offer is that you do not park over 3 hours?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Al27

[Zamzara]

Even if the driver has breached an 'obligation' that does not give a private company the right to impose a fine or a penalty.

 

What I meant was if the driver has breached an obligation it will be a penalty. But PPCs are starting to improve their signs and word them so that the charge is a charge for parking, so we cannot blindly go on stating it is a penalty without considering this. That was the mistake the OFT made in the bank charges case.

 

The actual loss for breach is the actual cost to the ppc, not some maid up figure.

 

Not if there is a contract to pay the amount agreed. Then the loss would be non-payment of that amount. If I sign a tenancy agreement for £100 a week it is pretty clear that the landlord can recover the £100, not just his costs. His loss is the £100 that wasn't paid.

 

I've long been a supporter of not paying PPCs but we have to move with the changing methods. The fact that they are tightening up their signs suggests to me more court cases will follow. Otherwise why bother?

[kiptower]

they can put anything they want in there signs, but it wont change the situation they are in, they have to prove 2 things A) a contract was formed, B) there was a loss to them ,

 

as there have been no change in civil Law , their wording means nothing

[Al27]

But PPCs are starting to improve their signs and word them so that the charge is a charge for parking

 

That's what they want you to think. But you need to consider what constitutes an offer. All the change in wording does is try and form an offer for not doing something. "Do not park. But if you do park our charge is £120" isn't an offer.

 

Not if there is a contract to pay the amount agreed. Then the loss would be non-payment of that amount. If I sign a tenancy agreement for £100 a week it is pretty clear that the landlord can recover the £100, not just his costs. His loss is the £100 that wasn't paid.

 

But you're paying for a week's worth of rent. The landlord is not saying "Get out of my flat. But if you do stay you agree to pay £100 for the week".

 

If he was to state "Weeks one - three are £100 and week four is £500", the burden would be on him to prove he had made the offer clear and it was accepted. That offer would imply he doesn't want them to stay the fourth week, but if he could prove the tenants agreed he would have no problem. He would might into problems if he just posted a letter. The offer is so unusual, who would agree to it? Pretty much like a sign in a car park.

 

But then what would happen if did it correctly and got agreement for the last week being a million pounds? In that case I think the case would just be thrown out purely on reasonableness (obviously it wouldn't be going to small claims!)

 

 

But PPCs are starting to improve their signs and word them so that the charge is a charge for parking, so we cannot blindly go on stating it is a penalty without considering this. That was the mistake the OFT made in the bank charges case.

 

Well we know the banks thought they were penalty charges, which is why they didn't defend a single case. But are we comparing apples with pears here? Remember a bank charge involved lending money and then adding a charge on top - not the same as resting a vehicle on some tarmac for half an hour.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Al27

[Zamzara]

If he was to state "Weeks one - three are £100 and week four is £500", the burden would be on him to prove he had made the offer clear and it was accepted. That offer would imply he doesn't want them to stay the fourth week, but if he could prove the tenants agreed he would have no problem. He would might into problems if he just posted a letter. The offer is so unusual, who would agree to it? Pretty much like a sign in a car park.

 

I agree.

[Wildrose]

Hi, Just to let you know, I dont know how Ive manged to do it with G24, but for some strange reason, after I told them to more or less "get lost", they sent me a letter to say the were waivering the charges and no further action would be taken. Just when I was putting my fists up lol .. good luck everyone.

 

Thanks for all your assurancies, it just goes to show, you can win, just ignore or tell them to get lost.

[shazbo]

I posted a question on here in December after receiving a letter with a fine for £40. I took the advice I got and ignored another letter, however, I have now received a letter from a company called Newlyn (bailiffs) who have been instructed by Civil Enforcement Ltd to "recover the £160 that I owe them". It says do not ignore this letter as further action may be taken at considerable cost to me. Do I continue to ignore? I'm starting to worry!!

[DBC]

I posted a question on here in December after receiving a letter with a fine for £40. I took the advice I got and ignored another letter, however, I have now received a letter from a company called Newlyn (bailiffs) who have been instructed by Civil Enforcement Ltd to "recover the £160 that I owe them". It says do not ignore this letter as further action may be taken at considerable cost to me. Do I continue to ignore? I'm starting to worry!!

 

Can I correct you on a couple of points? First it is not a "fine", it's an unenforceable invoice. Secondly they are not "bailiffs", they are debt collectors.

 

Just ignore, these clowns will eventually lose interest in you.

[letshelp]

I posted a question on here in December after receiving a letter with a fine for £40. I took the advice I got and ignored another letter, however, I have now received a letter from a company called Newlyn (bailiffs) who have been instructed by Civil Enforcement Ltd to "recover the £160 that I owe them". It says do not ignore this letter as further action may be taken at considerable cost to me. Do I continue to ignore? I'm starting to worry!!

That is what their letters are designed to do. Just carry on and ignore them.

regards