Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[Barnsley Boy]

Firstly hello to everyone that is in the same boat as I am! I have read all the posts that i can in relation to these muppets but I am still a bit confused as to what the best letter is to send in order to get a "ticket cancelled" reply. It seems that some have had better luck than others but as this post is now so long it is difficult to keep track. I would appreciate any help in this matter. My case is one of Mc Donalds at |Gatwick, 5 mins over my stay but I was the driver and the car is registered to my wife. As my wife does not relish the undertaking of this task and would rather just pay them I am going to be doing all the letter writing. Can anyone see a problem with me signing the letters as I want to be the one that attends court should it go that far.

 

Thanks again

 

I would have thought that the only likely way of getting the postal landfill redirected to you is to admit to being the driver at the time. This does unfortunately sacrifice one of the lines of defence but there are plenty of others.

 

something along the lines of....

 

Your Ref __________

 

Dear Robin Bar Steward,

 

I note that you have written to xxxxxxx as the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle but you should address any further correspondance to me, as I was driving on that particular day.

 

Your charge is clearly based on a purported contract presumably with me as the driver. I firmly deny that any such contract exists. There is no basis for your invoice and I therefore request that it be cancelled.

 

Y/F

 

Unfortunately this in itself won't stop the reminders. CEL may insist that the claim rests with the RK and continue to write to them - not correct but it apes the wording of the statutory rights that the Police and Councils have [Fixed Penalty Notices and Penalty Charge Notices].

 

The truth is that CEL will keep on sending their annoying notices until they are sure that the fish is no longer hooked about to be landed.

[feralcat2]

Hi Bernie the Bolt

 

I apologise for the confusion. I assume CEL are empowered as data controllers, and equally, the DPA does allow for charging at Section 7/2, a,b. That said, there are max and min charge rates, thou I ahve no knowledge of them right now. (does anyone know)

 

However, to me this charge of £10 is both 'excessive and extortionate' insofar as all the info they can provide is the data 'you supplied' to the DVLA.

 

I agree with you that CEL should supply this data free, insofar as they are persuing a penalty (parking) charge against (whom-so-ever). The fact that they fail to 'disclose data freely' is unsavoury and unethical. That is a matter of integrety for McDonalds as the charge is insidious to their Corporate Goverance Statement

 

CEL should persue the driver for this money, not the vehicle keeper. The inclusion of DPA info into their letters is,. to my mind 'padding' and has no relevance to the issues. The £10 charge is a unadulterated con (roadside spiv territory) and a further attempt to imitate official documentation.

 

I raised this issue for I am aware that some people may be confused by CEL's unsavoury language. Pay them nothing is my motto and refuse to communicate until they supply you with statute or case law references appropiate to their case.

 

I will post further on this issue.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

As my wife does not relish the undertaking of this task and would rather just pay them I am going to be doing all the letter writing. Can anyone see a problem with me signing the letters as I want to be the one that attends court should it go that far.

 

Thanks again

 

I suggest your wife writes as follows:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I have appointed my husband [Mr John Smith] to act on my behalf and protect my interests in this matter.

 

Please direct all further correspondence to him.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Court is a different matter. Your wife would be the defendant but you can go as a "McKenzie man" (may be Mackenzie but it doesn't matter).

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

feralcat2,

 

The only possible data that CEL could have is of use is photos/videos. They can perfectly properly charge up to £10 for them.

 

There's no point though as if it goes to court they will have to produce them for free.

 

It's all part of the [problem].

[aka]

I have just spoken to a friend of mine who is a barrister and he has suggested a different approach. He h\as suggested that I pay the fine at the reduced rate of £75 BUT ATTACH A LETTER TO IT STATING THAT IT IS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" , this is just to stop any bullies arriving at the door. The letter should also state that by paying this fine I am not admitting to any incident and that I will be taking then to small claims court to reclaim my money plus costs. He stated that they may well just not cash my cheque as they can't be bothered with appearing in court.

 

 

Any opinions on this?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

aka,

 

With the greatest of respect to your friend, what this is doing is trading aggro now for risk and aggro later.

 

Possession is 9/10 of the law and you lose the initative if you hand over cash.

[aka]

Well can you suggest the difinitive letter to write that won't see me having to pay the increased cost if I let this drag on?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

aka

 

Have you already received a letter from them or just a ticket/invoice?

Do NOT write the first letter. When you have a letter, get your wife to write as follows:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#]

 

I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. I am the owner of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned.

 

If your allegation is that I was the driver then please produce evidence of this to substantiate your claim. If your allegation is that I as the owner of the vehicle am responsible, then please cite the relevant case and/or statute law.

 

In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed or any amount at all is due to you and in the absence of the above evidence and/or citations will not be prepared to enter into any further correspondence with you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

If your wife receives a further letter then get her to write as in one of my earlier posts and you write as follows:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#]

 

I have been asked by my wife to handle this matter for her. She wrote to you on [dd mmmm yyyy] (copy enclosed) and since that letter has not received the citations or evidence requested.

 

My wife feels that she has done all that she can to assist you in this matter and unless you are able to substantiate your claim against her I must reassert her denial of any liability to you and request that you cease writing to her.

 

If you continue to write to her we may have to consider what steps to take and this may include making a complaint to the police for harassment.

 

Yours faithfully

 

You may get accused of being the driver and/or you wife may be asked/told who/to say who the driver was. If this happens the body of your letter should be:

 

I regret to advise that the driver could have been any one of a number of people and my wife keeps no records of who has driven her car on any given day.

 

All I can do is to reiterate that it is you who must prove both the alleged debt and who the alleged debtor is and unless you are able to do so I restate what I have said before, specifically in my letter of [dd mmmm yyyy] regarding desisting in this correspondence.

In the highly unlikely event that they send photos that clearly show you in proximity to the car or in the car, come back and we can figure out what to say.

[Oh Boy!]

CONSIDER THIS'-

 

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES

 

A guide to an effective defence.

 

 

Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are. There are provisions for them in the Road Traffic Act 1991 and these provisions allow sanctions that the issuing authority can take.

 

THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES.

 

I'm sure any number of readers will be familiar with such facilities, from your local pay and display to any number of 'multi deck' car parks and even, more recently, the car parks for many stores.

 

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES RELY ON THE LAW OF CONTRACT

 

And while contract law can be a minefield of offer, acceptance, terms, implied terms and clauses, it can be surprisingly easy to understand in terms of every day matters such as this.

 

Essentially when a driver of a vehicle drives into a car park and parks his car he is implied to accept the offer for parking on the terms of the offeror (the parking company or land owner). A contract is formed and therefore the contract can be broken (or breached).

 

The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand. Often times those terms will include a provision that if you over stay you will be penalised to the tune of £50, £70 or whatever. They may also include a clause on clamping (I will not be dealing with the issue of clamping in this article). These signs are usually displayed at the pay stations (for pay and display) and for other car parks at the entrance and at intervals about the land. If the car park is improperly signed then immediately the PPC will be in difficulty. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land.

 

ONLY THE DRIVER AND THE OWNER OF THE LAND ARE A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT UNLESS THE PARKING COMPANY ACTS AS THEIR AGENT

 

Therefore should you receive an INVOICE from a PPC as the keeper of a vehicle and you do not know who was driving, I suggest you tell them this and tell them not to contact you again. You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide any information to the PPC. Refuse to do so.

 

If you were the driver of the vehicle then that will move the goalposts a little. I would never advise anyone to lie in a document that could be used in any future proceedings. Thus I cannot advocate that any person write to the PPC and deny being the driver if this they actually were the driver. That said you are still under no obligation to incriminate yourself or to provide the PPC with any information whatsoever. The onus is on the claimant in a civil action to prove their case. As in criminal matters the defendant will retain their right not to incriminate themselves or provide evidence against themselves. I advise that if you were the driver that you ask the PPC to provide proof of who the driver was, being very careful at every stage in communication NOT to offer that you were. Should they be unable to prove who the driver was or unwilling then I would suggest that you write to them telling them never to contact you again.

 

There will be instances where the PPC has video evidence or otherwise of the driver’s identity. If it transpires that this is the case I would not advise that you make efforts to deny being the driver. I would advise that you simply refuse to confirm that you were and refrain from offering any evidence that may incriminate you later.

 

Many guides of this ilk will advise you that if you are accosted by an employee of a PPC that you should simply get into your car, not speak a word to them, and leave. Indeed they will struggle to justify their actions or demands without an issued invoice. However I cannot stress enough that driving away quickly or dangerously would be a foolish action, one which could attract unwanted attention. There are plenty of ways to nullify the effect of receiving one of these invoices, so rather than risk any unpleasant outcomes I recommend that if there is no absolutely safe way to simply drive off that you refrain from doing so. I do advise that you ask that person’s name but say absolutely nothing more. Allow them to go about their business, in so far as they do not assault you, but offer them nothing that they could note and use later. Remember you are under no obligation at all to make their job easier. I suggest that you refuse to accept any invoice they hand to you and that you refuse to allow them to place it on your vehicle.

 

Once one of these invoices has been issued it will have certain characteristics that I would like to draw your attention to.

 

It will have a name that can be abbreviated to PCN, so Penalty Charge Notice, Parking Charge Notice etc. The reason for this is that there IS a provision within the Road Traffic Act for an instrument called a ‘Penalty Charge Notice’. This provision in the Road Traffic Act applies ONLY to those acting on behalf of the local authority (FPNs will cover tickets issued by those acting for the police). Penalty charge notices issued by local authorities have a certain format they must adhere to and it is well documented. Invoices from PPCs do NOT have to adhere to this format but it is very easy to confuse the two and assume an invoice from a PPC to be a ticket from a local authority. This is no accident and the effect is to cause the uninitiated to believe that the invoice issued by the PPC has an official bearing (ergo to make the recipient more likely to pay without issue).

To this effect the invoice may say on it that removal is prohibited (removal of a PCN or FPN by anyone other than the keeper/driver is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act). Furthermore the invoice may also state that the keeper’s details can be obtained from the DVLA (another characteristic of an FPN or PCN because for both these instruments it is the KEEPER who is liable, unlike when dealing with PPCs). To clarify, invoices issued by PPCs are not in any way covered by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. They will not lead to criminal proceedings, removal or interference with them is not prohibited and they have no statutory right of access to the DVLA’s keeper information (they must request it).

 

PPCs COMMIT CRIMINAL OFFENCES

 

If you take the time to examine Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 you will be surprised to discover, I’m sure, that the characteristics described, which give the invoice it’s official bearing and suggest that it’s removal may be a crime make the use, issuing and pursuit of funds claimed due because of such, a crime in itself. Note section 40 (d) specifically.

 

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

Thus if you receive one of these invoices and it appears to purport to be a PCN or FPN then I strongly suggest that you report the incident to the police. The police are DUTY BOUND to investigate and act. I had to have a ‘debate’ with the local Sgt to have him act on my behalf, however if you are polite and firm then the police should take it on for you.

 

THE CONTRACT ELEMENT

 

Let’s examine the law that does cover the issuing of these invoices.

 

As I’ve stated earlier the PPC will base it’s claim on the driver having entered into a contract with them. Strictly speaking this is very much the case. Assuming the signage and notice to be sufficient then the driver accept the offer of parking by his actions and is implied to accept the terms and conditions of so doing.

 

You will have three co-mingling defences to reply on in this case.

 

Firstly and most simply – contractual penalties. When you park in the car park and over-stay or misuse the facilities in some way you breach your contract with the land owner. The terms state you will not overstay or misuse the facilities, these are terms on which your contract for parking is based, thus when you do something contrary to these terms you breach the contract. The common law holds that the remedy for breach of contract is damages. Therefore the land owner is entitled to damages covering the costs incurred as a result of your breaching the contract.

 

Let us examine this – if you over-stay at a car park then the land owner loses revenue. Thus if parking is £1 an hour and you overstay by an hour then the damage is £1. Any company may argue that you are liable for the time of any attendant who may be involved in the issuing of an invoice. This is nonsense. The fact is that the PPC employ staff to be at the car park for all eventualities. Their job description will involve the issuing and preparation of these invoices, therefore to imply that damages are incurred by the involvement of an employee hired for this express purpose is a quite ridiculous prospect and should be sternly resisted (particularly when the cost of one of these invoices is more than the attendant is paid per day). Alternatively if you park incorrectly and use two bays I would suggest that in all reality the most that could be said to be valid damages is the value of the spaces you have used (so if you obscure a second space then double the cost of your parking). So as you can see actual damages in these cases will be absolutely minimal. Why, therefore, do the PPCs seek to charge the users of the car parks figures like £50 and £70? Simply because people do not know any better than to pay. The principle surrounding this is very similar to that surrounding bank charges. Banks cannot charge their customers extortionate rates for going over their overdraft limits (breaching their contract). The law is exactly the same for Private Parking Companies. Thus should matters progress with the parking company you should use this as the cornerstone of your defence.

 

Contractual penalties are dealt with in the following cases:-

 

The caselaw is well explained by Peter T Barnes of Always Associates in this article.

 

Is it a Penalty? - Alway Associates

 

This is aimed more for commercial parties than consumers but it outlines the principles well. The following is a summary from bankchargeshell.co.uk - Legal cases and common law on the relevant case law as it relates to the circumstances at hand (a more consumer based perspective).

 

Wilson v. Love (1896)

 

A tenant farmer agreed to pay an additional rent of £3 per ton by way of penalty for every ton of hay or straw that he sold off the premises during the last 12 months of the tenancy. The clause was regarded as a penalty because at the time hay was worth five shillings a ton more than straw.

 

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. (1915)

 

In the particular case, the judges held that the sum specified in the contract was reasonable and was classified as liquidated damages. However, in this case, Lord Dunedin laid down rules which are still applied today in these types of cases:

 

i) The sum is a penalty if it is greater than the greatest loss which could be suffered from the breach – in other words, if it is "extravagant and unconscionable".

 

ii) If it agreed that a larger sum shall be payable in default of paying a smaller sum, this is a penalty.

 

Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915)

 

In this case, the judges reached the conclusion that the sum to be paid for a breach of the contract was substantial and arbitrary and bore no relation to the potential loss of the other party. It was, therefore, a penalty.

 

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

In this case a customer bought a car under a hire purchase agreement. He paid the initial and first payments and then cancelled the agreement. The company tried to recover the sums specified in the contract for canceling the agreement, but the courts held that the sums payable were excessive and constituted a penalty clause. It was, therefore, unenforceable.

 

Murray v. Leisureplay (2004)

 

Mr Murray was sacked by Leisureplay and he claimed three years' salary as per his contract of employment. The courts decided that this clause was a penalty clause and he was not entitled to this level of damages.

 

The important issues to remember here are that consumers are not of comparable bargaining power to the PPCs. The PPCs are large companies with significantly better resources. The consumer needs their services (or else where would they park?). For damages to be justifiable and enforceable by the courts they must be a reflection of actual loss. Consider what we have explained the costs and damages to be to the PPCs and then consider the penalty they seek to impose. While a difference of £60 is not grossly disproportionate in the commercial sense, within the context of the contract between the consumer and the PPC/landowner it certainly is. The most valid case on the circumstances is Dunlop. Please, if you have the chance, take the time to read the case for yourself and familiarise yourself with the facts and conclusions. I strongly recommend using a search facility like Lexis Nexis Butterworths or Westlaw.

 

Secondly there is a piece of little known consumer legislation called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999).

 

Schedule 2 Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be Regarded as Unfair

 

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation.

 

Thus when PPCs charge £50-£70 for what is a minimal loss on their part, the above regulations will apply.

 

The full schedules can be found on various government sites. Most notably here –

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

Pay also particular attention to section 5, which reads:-

 

“Unfair Terms

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

 

(5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

 

Schedule 2 mentioned above is at the end of the document and it is well worth reading up on. It will give you a very good feel for the ‘spirit’ of the regulations.

 

The OFT’s site will explain this in simpler language and make the regulations more digestible. I urge you to read this also-

 

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

 

The OFT’s page will also have information regarding making a complaint with them. Something I urge you to consider very carefully. Should you feel you have grounds to complain then do so.

 

Again the regulations will provide you with the basis for a defence against any action taken by a PPC. It will also provide ammunition in your negotiations with them and could well persuade them to dismiss any notions of making a claim.

 

You should also consider making use of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

A copy of the Act is available here-

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

Generally the Act covers agreements made between businesses but it can extend to nearly all forms of contract and interestingly negates clauses in contracts which seek to evade certain specific liabilities.

 

However in this case Section 4 will apply. It states:-

 

“4 Unreasonable indemnity clauses

 

(1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

 

(2) This section applies whether the liability in question—

 

(a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

 

(b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”

 

 

Clearly per the Act £50-£70 for parking for a few hours is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

 

This law should provide three solid avenues by which to have any action against you deflected or halted.

 

To summarise-

 

It is most important that you know your rights. Please don’t use this guide as a ‘be all and end all’ to the subject. Use it as your starting point. Read around these topics and get to know the law. This is good consumer law for today’s generation and will serve you well in other aspects of your life. Being willing to speak out and stand up to corporate bullies will set you in good stead for the rest of your life.

 

The important thing to remember is that you don’t have to help these bloodsuckers to build a case against you. Resist it at every step. The law’s presumption is of innocence and that is for good reason. It protects the individual from the imbalanced power of the many. The PPC must prove your liability. 99 times out of 100 they simply can’t and so you’re safe. In the one instance they may be able to develop a prima facie case you will have three good defences. Rely on these. Become familiar with them and their workings.

 

Don’t be afraid to contact and request the assistance of the following-

 

The Police

 

Trading Standards

 

The Office of Fair Trading

 

These organisations were created to protect you and your rights. They may be reluctant to undertake what they regard as a trifling or minor matter but don’t accept that. Demand their assistance. Your council tax, income tax and every other tax the good people of the UK are fleeced for pays for this protection. You have earnt it.

 

I have NEVER heard of a case like this making it to court. I suspect PPCs don’t sue their victims, and they are victims, because they know the merits of their case are non existent.

 

I am quite willing to provide advice on a case by case basis to anyone who may require some support. I do this as a private individual offering help and guidance. There is no substitute for professional legal advice and if you require representation I urge you to make arrangements sooner rather than later.

 

.

[patdavies]

Would it not have been easier to refer to Pete's 'sticky' post on the forum, rather than repeat it all again under your own name?

[aka]

all i have received so far is the ticke. I do not really want to risk having to pay the full amount by letting the grace time slip but I am feeling more inclined to fight the dirty F****! I did call their Payment line on the ticket so that i could have a rant but when i entered the "offence" number it just kept on saying that it was invalid. Another point is that at Mc Donaalds at Gatwick I do believe that there are MANY signs saying the time limit. I am also sure but not positive that there are no cameras there, Just a bloke in a high vis jacket standing at the enterance with a clip board. I have seen him there on several occasions and always wondered what he was upto. I live too far away to go and check but I am sure that he is just recording reg numbers in and out with times so my case could be against his crappy casio! Anyone live near to the airport that can proove this maybe?

[Oh Boy!]

Sorry I couldn't figure out how to link it.

[freakyleaky]

I thought I had seen it before! It's not a problem! To post a link simply highlight the thread title, right click, copy, then paste into a post!

[silversurfer]

hi all though you might like to here the latest from these muppets d'nt these guys give up one year later from newlyn (notice prior to county court proceedings ) you have failed to pay the above parting ticket and this may be registered in the county court..this action will allow bailiffs to remove household effects and cars from your propery etc etc you have 14 days to pay so i may have my day in court ?

 

[feralcat2]

Aka

Don't waste your money calling the little leeches, they will allow additional time when you reply, They issue an automated responce, (ie, a standard format letter) with the usual garble of holding registerer keeper responsible ect, ect, ect, (Copy by chococat on page 1.) the current letter has some padding where they cite principles applicable to the Data Protection Act. This padding is not relevant to the parking charge notice. it is another [problem].

 

You letter begs the question, has any-one been sent photo' s after being tagged at McDonald's at Gatwck

[aka]

i really do not think that there are any cameras............just a chav and a clipboard

[zalamazu]

So has anyone had a final reminder before legal action & if so what have they done.

[aka]

So has anyone had a final reminder before legal action & if so what have they done.

 

That will be very interesting to know.

 

 

also the initial fine was not sent by registered post so we have grounds for ignoring the firdt letter anyway (the fine one) as I can always state I never received it.

[Seakie]

Having received the stock reply from CEL after sending my initial reply , I am sorely tempted to send this to them.... Any thoughts

Please note that the driver denies parking the vehicle where they say it was during the alleged times. This can be proven !

 

 

 

 

 

The burden of proof is upon CEL and not the driver. If you insist on chasing this invalid parking charge I wish to be called as a witness to a court of law where CEL can present it’s case and the driver can defend it through legal representation.. There my solicitor will inform the bench of the drivers identity and call upon CEL to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I exercise my right as an interested party to have full disclosure of evidence against the driver at the material time including all images or moving pictures for the entire duration of the alleged offence, in its original form, uncopied and unedited.

 

This case cannot be proven as the vehicle was not parked during the alleged times.

 

It should be noted that the driver of the vehicle on the day in question will call private witnesses for the court who will, under oath provide evidence that the vehicle was not where CEL state it was during the material times.

 

When proven that the alleged offence did not occur I will instruct solicitors to seek to recover costs from CEL for each of the six witnesses I propose to call.

 

If CEL attempt to recover alleged costs without a summons to attend a court hearing and instruct a debt recovery organisation who attempt to recover the alleged debt , I will take legal action against CEL seeking damages of £100,000 + costs. I will also refer the matter to the Police and ask for a prosecution citing legislation from Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

As a representative of CEL , your company are now under notice of the above.

 

Messrs XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are on notice to act in this matter should the matter not be discontinued. I will seek full recovery of costs incurred by them

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Seakie,

 

I can appreciate the sentiment and your frustration but for the reasons I have identified I would suggest that this letter will not help your cause.

 

My suggestion is to write simply as follows:

 

Dear Sirs

 

Re: [Reference]

 

Thank you for your letter of dd mmmm yyyy.

 

Your dispute is with the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time, not with me as the keeper.

 

Unless you are able to provide, to me, evidence that I, as keeper, am responsible for the alleged debt and that this alleged debt is an actual debt I will be unable to enter into further correspondence with you.

 

Unless you provide me with the above mentioned evidence, this alleged debt will remain in dispute and I must ask you to cease and desist correspondence with me.

 

Yours faithfully

Having received the stock reply from CEL after sending my initial reply , I am sorely tempted to send this to them.... Any thoughts

Please note that the driver denies parking the vehicle where they say it was during the alleged times. This can be proven ! I would suggest it is a mistake to refer to the driver. Simply deny that you as the keeper are not liable

 

 

 

 

 

The burden of proof is upon CEL and not the driver. If you insist on chasing this invalid parking charge I wish to be called as a witness to a court of law where CEL can present it’s case and the driver can defend it through legal representation.. You cannot insist on this There my solicitor will inform the bench this term is only relevant to a magistrates' court which does not apply here of the drivers identity no, it won't even get here, CEL will either take action directly against you, if they can, to force disclosure of the drivers identity, or will allege that you were the driver and call upon CEL to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. no the burden of proof is "balance of probabilities"

 

I exercise my right you have no such right as an interested party to have full disclosure of evidence against the driver you only have the "right" of disclosure of evidence against you once legal proceedings have commenced, even then it's not actually classified as a "right" as such at the material time including all images or moving pictures for the entire duration of the alleged offence, in its original form, uncopied and unedited.

 

This case cannot be proven as the vehicle was not parked during the alleged times.

 

It should be noted that the driver of the vehicle on the day in question will call private witnesses no they won't only the defendant will for the court who will, under oath oaths aren't necessarily taken in small claims track provide evidence that the vehicle was not where CEL state it was during the material times.

 

When proven that the alleged offence did not occur that is not what is proven, it is the plaintiff/claimant who has to do the proving I will instruct solicitors to seek to recover costs from CEL for each of the six witnesses I propose to call. So who is calling, you or the driver? Costs are not recoverable in small claims track

 

If CEL attempt to recover alleged costs without a summons to attend a court hearing and instruct a debt recovery organisation who attempt to recover the alleged debt , I will take legal action against CEL seeking damages of £100,000 + costs. No you won't, no lawyer would take on the case, how have you lost £100,000? I will also refer the matter to the Police and ask for a prosecution citing legislation from Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

 

As a representative of CEL , your company are now under notice of the above.

 

Messrs XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX are on notice to act in this matter should the matter not be discontinued. I will seek full recovery of costs incurred by them

[Minidriver]

I too have been issued a so called PCN by Civil Enforcement Ltd for parking at Gatwick airport. In fact I was not the driver as I was at home looking after my 13 month old son who was asleep in bed, at the time.

 

I have found a website called The Roadside Lawyer. They say that they can get Civil Enforcement Ltd off your back for you if you pay them £25.

 

Has anybody else done this and did it work. I am tempted to pay this money just to get rid of them. At least it won't be lining their pockets.

 

This is so stressful!!!

[Seakie]

Absolutely right. It is frustration... Will follow the lead... Many Thanks

Will keep you updated

[demon_x_slash]

minidriver: Why would you pay £25 to the Roadside Lawyer?? The advice on here is free

[aka]

today a friend of mine went to Mc Donalds at Gatwick to check the situation out for me. At the entrance there was a bloke in a high vis jacket just as i thought there would be with a clipboard. My mate asked him what he was doing and he replied " I am TAKING down reg numbers and the time you enter (NO CAMERA.....JUST RELYING ON HIS WATCH!!!!). My mate asked if there were any cameras and he replied that there were cameras everywhere, but the only camera he could see (and he took a photo of it) was a regular cctv type on the top of a pole when you exit. So, it seems that they manually record your entry buy using a watch and MAYBE a camera when you exit. So it seems that their case lies with the acuracy of a bloke's ability to set his watch

[feralcat2]

I too have been issued a so called PCN by Civil Enforcement Ltd for parking at Gatwick airport. In fact I was not the driver as I was at home looking after my 13 month old son who was asleep in bed, at the time.

 

I have found a website called The Roadside Lawyer. They say that they can get Civil Enforcement Ltd off your back for you if you pay them £25.

 

Has anybody else done this and did it work. I am tempted to pay this money just to get rid of them. At least it won't be lining their pockets.

 

This is so stressful!!!

 

Are you sure Roadside Lawyer is a uk based outfit. I have tried to find them on the net without any luck.

 

However if you follow the advise given and keep your nerve, its most likely the problem will go away. The explosion in private parking companies has arrison (I think) from the British Parking Association, setting up a volintary code of conduct to pay fines of £75 & 40 respectively for over-parking on private land.

 

The only viable way to defeat these little leeches is to cost them time and money. That means being ICILY POLITE and SHORT with your replies. Keep demanding from them the statute and case law citations that supports their case. Currently non exists, (and they know none exists) but they may use elaberate language as 'padding' to try and bamboozule you, Don't be deterred, help is but a few key strokes away. Read the other sites (on this forum) on the same theme, make notes and you will be surprised how much help there is available to you.

 

From the notes you can forge your own replies. You will be surprised how proficient you can become and it also gladdens the 'old chuckle muscle' to know they will not get one over on you.

 

Forget about the Roadside Lawyer, currently the law is on your side but your have to be street-smart and not help these leeches make a case against you. These leeches rejoice in bending the law to suit their own ends to make money, to them your just another trick to fleece.

 

As stated above, be ICILY POLITE and SHORT with you replies. Let them do the work, you are under no obligation what-so-ever to help them. (make a case against you)