Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[Sidewinder]

Hello again one and all.

Today i have received yet another letter from CEL. This is my first letter from them since they forwarded my 'file' to Newlyn. You know the rest!

Anyway, please take a look at the letter at: MySpace.com - Cable - 29 - Male - UK - www.myspace.com/cabledude1234

Then click on 'View My: Pics' and click on the thumbnail image of the letter to enlarge it.

Once again ladies and gentleman, thoughts and advice, particularly from those in the legal profession, would be very much appreciated.

All the best, and a Happy Christmas!

 

*****************************************************

 

Just love the way that they use the sentence "....The charge that has been levied.....falls within the Government's recommended guidelines for car park enforcement on private property" to add some kind of justification to their actions, whilst completely failing to answer specific points no doubt raised in your letter.

 

Did you actually tell them that they are claiming that you overstayed by being there 1 hour and 1 minute, but their signs (as shown in the photograph) state that the maximum waiting time is 1 hour and 15 minutes?

 

Invite them to sue you then hoist them by their own petard (or signage) IF they even bother to do so.

[Lilo72]

*REMOVED*

[Gaou1]

Well i received a reply to my letter stating that the car was sold that day, and the new onwer was the one who was driving.

It basically says that they are unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice. It then gives a whole load of writing on the fact that there were plenty of signs up etc etc:rolleyes:

 

They then go on to say that they will only cancel it on receipt of proof of sale / disposal of the vehicle. I have to send them a copy of the letter i got from the DVLA confirming the change of keepers or any other genuine proof of sale within the next 7 days.

 

Now, anyone will know that it can take weeks to get the letter from the DVLA, plus the fact that we're in the middle of one of the busiest posting times of the year, i don't like the chances of getting anything in the post

 

It then says ' The PCN remains valid as the ticket was correctly issued in accordance with the terms and conditions stated. Payment must therefore be made without delay.

However, in view of your correspondance, we have extended the time allowed for you to pay at the orginal reduced charge by a further 7 days ( lucky me ). But only if i pay by cheque or postal order.

 

It then ends with the usual If we don't receive payment, we will issue proceedings against you in the County Court to recover the amount due to us. And add additional costs etc etc.

 

All i'm planning ondoing is contacting the new owner, who is aware of the fine, but is in Portugal, along with the car, and maybe getting him to ring them to confirm he's the owner. Apart from that , i'm not planning on doing anything, unless by a postal miracle, i get the DVLA letter through.

 

I guess we'll see what happens, but i'm not worrying about it

[battyboomboom]

Like Lilo72 said, don't bother doing their work for them!!! Remember, driver is not always the RK! Tell the guy in Portugal not to pay if he knows whats good for him - and also, as they don't have his address then he's not got anything to worry about! And neither do you, because if they are stupid enough to take you to court then simply produce the DVLA docs!

 

It's not a fine BTW

[Barnsley Boy]

Gaou1

 

You are being very patient with them. They are showing all the reasonableness, honesty and sincerity that we've all come to expect from PPCs.

 

Me .... I'd tell them to spin.

[Sidewinder]

They then go on to say that they will only cancel it on receipt of proof of sale / disposal of the vehicle. I have to send them a copy of the letter i got from the DVLA confirming the change of keepers or any other genuine proof of sale within the next 7 days.

 

They were quick enough to spend £2.50 requesting the RK details from the DVLA in the first place - let them spend another £2.50 if they are that intent on checking what you have told them. Their responsibility to establish liability, not yours.

[Barnsley Boy]

They were quick enough to spend £2.50 requesting the RK details from the DVLA in the first place - let them spend another £2.50 if they are that intent on checking what you have told them. Their responsibility to establish liability, not yours.

 

Could not agree more - as extract from OFT guidelines:

 

2.8 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, e.g. threatening debt recovery action to 'the occupier' or sending a payment demand to all people sharing the same

name/date of birth as a debtor in the hope that contact with the correct debtor will be made.

b. disclosing debt details to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question, e.g. disclosing details to 'the occupier' of an address.

c. refusing to deal with appointed or authorised third parties, such as Citizens Advice Bureaux, independent advice centres or money advisers

d. contacting debtors directly and bypassing their appointed representatives

e. operating a policy, without reason, of refusing to negotiate with debt

management companies

f. passing on debtor details to debt management companies without the debtors' informed prior consent

g. failing to refer on to the creditor reasonable offers to pay by instalments

h. not passing on payments received within a reasonable time resulting in delays that adversely affect a debtor's financial position.

i. failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued

j. requiring an individual to supply information to prove they are not the debtor in question, e.g. driving licences, passports, full name, date of birth, signatures

k. not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt.

The red bits are clear breaches of the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and, in a perfect world, should lead to withdrawal of a company's consumer credit license.

[Gaou1]

I wasn't aware of the guidlines. Some very interesting points there in red. Thanks for posting them.

[feralcat2]

Hi Sidewinder, from your posting @ 256, I was sent an exact replica of your letter some months back, albeit now they are telling me that they are forwarding my file to debt collectors ect (you know the spiel)

 

I have replied quoting breach of OFT guidelines (see Barnsley Boy posting @282) albeit I quoted Section 2.6 which deals with Physical/Psychological Harassment as it has more teeth.(It is valid in the Civil Courts as well as the Crimnal Courts, and eventually the debt may end up in the Courts, Who Knows ???)

 

I have also informed CEL that, in view of their out-right refusal to provide substantive information regarging their charge/penalty, I would now charge them for all further correspondence, including corresondence with any debt collectors acting on their behalf. I also included their client Mc Doonuts as an accessory to their fictious behaviour, and notified CEL that should McDoonuts refuse to pay, they would be liable for payment, given they were acting on McDoonuts behalf.

 

If it transpires that I am forced to spent time researching, reading and replying to ficticious correspondence, then I hold them liable for payment for that time since their PCN penalty claim is unenforceable under the common law of contract.

 

Thus, to those more legally minded than myself, can you please comment on this tactic as it becomes difficult to work around the continuous hassle. I know that is what the little ****-bags want, but I prefer to see them in Court, even if it transpires of my own choosing for psychological harassment.

[Lilo72]

*removed*

[Barnsley Boy]

Lilo72

 

No I am not a solicitor, so on the basis of your last posting you may disregard what comes next but.............

 

I do have experience of PPCs and the way they operate having gone through their bluff and bluster on two separate occasions and fought them to a standstill. I know when I'm being lied to and know how the County Court operates:

 

Lets analyse the letter you've been sent.

 

"You have failed to pay the above parking ticket, and this may now be registered in the County Court.

 

This action will allow Bailiffs to remove household effects and cars from your property, and may effect your credit rating."

 

What a load of baloney.

 

First the PPC would have to register a claim against you in the county court, probably using MCOL [Money Claim On Line]. This would cost the PPC £30. The Court would register the claim and send you a summons. You would get 14 days to acknowledge which action would then give you up to 28 days to submit a defence. At this point you can elect to have the hearing in your local county court. A date for a hearing would be set. The PPC would have to win the hearing [fat chance with the defence you would be able to present, courtesy of members of this forum]. You would be given 14 days to pay the judgment. Only if you defaulted on payment, then and only then, could the PPC apply for bailiffs to become involved. Paying CCJs on time can actually increase peoples credit rating. It is only outstanding CCJs which have a detrimental effect.

 

I've spent rather longer on these forums than I should and I've never heard of CEL taking anybody to court. Court cases are few and far between for any of the PPCs but there are a few isolated examples here and there. Where CEL are concerned there are literally hundreds of postings, thousands of viewings. If CEL were successfully taking people to court we would have heard all about it.

 

You have been peddled half truths if not downright lies. I understand your concern but remember it is their job to try and get you to pay by any means possible.

[Sidewinder]

I wholeheartedly agree with the advice from Barnsley Boy. This appears to be the latest letter from the threatomatic and is designed with the sole purpose of making you believe that you are about to be hauled into court to be told that all of your worldly possessions will be sold. For all the legal accuracy it contains I am surprised that they didn't go the whole hog and tell you that you would be seeing in the new year in a cell with your new special friend Bubba.

 

Newlyn are basically a firm of bailiffs, and are using threatening behaviour to force payment. As BB says, bailiff action may only follow a successful civil action followed by continued refusal to pay - IF the claimant is able to convince the Court that he is entitled to the money. In the unlikely event that they are daft enough to proceed, then (from Post #203) is your defence and would almost certainly fatally flaw their case.

 

Reference XXXXXXXXX

 

Sir,

 

I am frankly appalled that you have again written to me in connection with this matter, apparently ignoring the fact that I am in dispute with your client regarding the validity of this charge. I strenuously refute any claim that I owe any money to either yourselves or your client, as I made no agreement to make such payment at any time. Indeed it would appear that your client is uncertain as to exactly why they believe such a payment is due. They originally claimed that I was responsible for a 'Parking Charge' in respect of a visit to McDonalds Gatwick and 'overstayed' in that I remained on the premises for 1 hour and 1 minute. Unaware of any such restriction, and certainly not having seen signage at the time to the effect that I might be charged, I have recently sought evidence of this condition and am concerned to note that signs in place in the car park indicate that visitors should remain for no longer than 1 hour and 15 minutes. I have enclosed a photograph to illustrate this fact, and on that basis I fail to see how I may have contravened any time limit by remaining for 1 hour and 1 minute only. It is also not immediately apparent from the signs that a charge may be payable in the event of an 'overstay'.

 

Please note therefore that no payment will be forthcoming in respect of this charge, and I am confident that the nature of your threats constitute breaches of the Administration of Justice Act and The Protection from Harassment Act. I respectfully suggest that you refer this matter to your client in order to close their file.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

How would any Judge be able to find in favour of a parking company who cannot even decide how long they allow people to park before charging them?

 

Fact - you noticed no sign which invited you to agree to pay a charge.

 

Fact - on receiving an invoice in the post you stated this in writing.

 

Fact - you wondered how you could have missed this and sought evidence that such a sign and condition exists.

 

Fact - the signs on which basis you are expected to agree to a contract are not clear in stating that a charge will apply.

 

Fact - the signs state that you have 75 minutes free parking yet by their own documentation they are trying to invoice you for staying only 61 minutes.

 

I am neither a Judge nor a lawyer, but I could well imagine that based on this they could never prove their case against you. And that is without even having to argue that the charge represents a penalty and is therefore unenforceable.

[Barnsley Boy]

Lilo72,

 

Have a look over at Pepipoo Parking Forums. Do a search on "wild bean", you will find a thread with 884 postings and over 112 THOUSAND viewings, all bout CEL. There are a few from people who felt intimidated enough to pay, lots more from people who have flat out refused. Interestingly enough there is not one case proceeded to court, not one. CEL / Newlyn have of course threatened to do so many times, they have a supply of BS greater than the average mushroom farm.

 

These guys are chancers, plain and simple. They will kill the golden goose by risking a well publicised county court defeat.

[Lilo72]

*removed*

[feralcat2]

hi Lilo72

The letter from Newlyn is a futher breach of the OFT code of practice inciting physical/ psychological harassment in persuance of a debt.

 

CEL have a right of passage to engage ligitation at any time of their choosing and equally, you have the right to defend yourself against spurious and ficticious claims. CEL have intentionally refused to provide evidence in support of their claims and in doing so, have breached the codes of practice as set out by both the DVLA and the OFT. Those codes are an important plank in your defence,

 

Cel have 'to be seen' to be acting in a mannor commensurate with best practice. Todate they have not acted with the best intentions and have intentionally refused to provide any evidence in support of their claims.

 

Secondly, as Barnsley Boy has shown in his posting @ 286, Civil Court rules set out the proceedures for a hearing, and threrby gives you the right of 'Discovery' where CEL are required by law they to provide all the evidence necessary to support their charge. It has to be a substantial claim, not a 'wishy-washy claim' that wastes Court time. As you already understand, the PCN claim is a penalty, not enforceable within the restraints of the common law of contract.

 

I believe that your time limit was 61 minutes, whereas the car park sign says 75 minutes. This discrepency would be difficult to explain in legal terms. and would challange the vaildity of the ligitation. Furthermore where CEL have not complied to leave a notice on your vehicle (as subscribed within the DVLA code) that failure would be considered a fairly substantial omission on unfair behaviour.

 

Lastly, the Court will provide sufficient time for you to prepare your defence. (if it ever comes to that) and will want to know why the debt has been artificially inflated before any legal action has begun. It is the business of the court to approve costs and those additional costs set by Newlyn can be challanged. In Contract Law, the alleged debt does not increase with time.

 

At this time all you can do is to write back to Newlyn's and insist the return the file back to CEL as the debt is disputed in accord with the OFT guidelines. and wait for developments. (hope this helps.)

[legaladviser]

Hello all.

I have received further correspondence from Newlyn today (22 Dec 07).

The 'letter' can be viewed at:

MySpace.com - Cable - 29 - Male - UK - www.myspace.com/cabledude1234

For those of you without access to view myspace, the letter goes something like this...

 

NOTICE PRIOR TO COUNTY COURT PROCEEDINGS

TOTAL OUTSTANDING £213.13

 

You have failed to pay the above parking ticket, and this may now be registered in the County Court.

 

This action will allow Bailiffs to remove household effects and cars from your property, and may effect your credit rating.

 

You have 14 days to pay, from the date of this letter.

 

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER

CONTACT US NOW

 

...Now this is, as you can imagine, a bit of a worry!

Has anyone else received this letter yet, and if so, what action was taken and what was the result?

What is extremely odd is that two days ago (see my last post or two), i received a letter from CEL themselves stating that i could once again pay at the 'reduced rate' (this letter can also be viewed at the above myspace address).

Yet, two days later i receive the one shown above from Newlyn.

All very strange.

Does anyone have any advice on this.

Though everyone's comments and support is greatly appreciated, i am looking for something more solidly based on the law, as i am starting to feel as if it is only a matter of time until a court date letter falls on my mat.

Thanks in advance.

I am a lawyer and have much advice in dealing with (and seeing off) these private parking companies. I can assure you that the advice you have received from BB and others is correct. These tickets are virtually unenforcable. In the extremely unlikely event that a court claim is issued (there has been none to date with CEL, despite many thousands of tickets issued) you would easily win with a proper defence. I and others on here would happily supply your defence but as I say the chances of it coming to that are extremely remote. Far more likely you will receive a few more bluff and bluster letters and they will then drop you to move to another more accommodating victim.

 

The private parking [problem] works because we are used to complying with council parking tickets. But the council scheme is statutory whereas the private parking company must prove a contract with the RK, which is almost impossible in most cases. The matter is further complicated because on CAG there are several known associates of private parking companies who attempt to confuse and deceive at every turn and state that the tickets are enforcable.

[feralcat2]

To Legaladvisor, Sorry about my ignorance, can you please advise what CAG is or means. Thanks.

[Sidewinder]

You are looking at it Feralcat - Consumer Action Group

[feralcat2]

Hi Sidewinder,

sorry for my ignorance, I never gave it a thought, it shows how the simplest clue can be mis-understood. Thanks for the prompt reply.

[TideTurner]

But the council scheme is statutory whereas the private parking company must prove a contract with the RK, which is almost impossible in most cases.

 

LA, looking at previous posts, an existing contract needs to be proven with the driver, not the RK. Can you confirm?

 

The matter is further complicated because on CAG there are several known associates of private parking companies who attempt to confuse and deceive at every turn and state that the tickets are enforcable.

 

This thread, and others has shown this to be a clever [problem], unenforceable by the private companies, and as yet, unchallenged by the OFT, despite numerous complaints. All CAG users should exercise a bit of vigilance and expose any non-genuine members (anybody here who throws a spanner in the works).

 

Surely, where you believe there is a [problem] which can affect everybody from the elderly to the unemployed, disabled and innocent, it must be reported to the OFT (Local Trading Standards Officer).

 

Before anybody makes any payment, at least check it out, and get the go-ahead from their local trading Standards that any claim made by these companies is legitimate.

 

What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?

 

Tide

[legaladviser]

LA, looking at previous posts, an existing contract needs to be proven with the driver, not the RK. Can you confirm?

 

 

 

This thread, and others has shown this to be a clever [problem], unenforceable by the private companies, and as yet, unchallenged by the OFT, despite numerous complaints. All CAG users should exercise a bit of vigilance and expose any non-genuine members (anybody here who throws a spanner in the works).

 

Surely, where you believe there is a [problem] which can affect everybody from the elderly to the unemployed, disabled and innocent, it must be reported to the OFT (Local Trading Standards Officer).

 

Before anybody makes any payment, at least check it out, and get the go-ahead from their local trading Standards that any claim made by these companies is legitimate.

 

What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?

 

Tide

Because the PPC obtains the RK details from DVLA and in most cases has no idea who the driver is, in practice they must prove a contract with the RK should the matter proceed to court or in some way find out who the driver is and pursue them. Clearly the only person who can enter into a contract is the driver and the RK has no obligation to supply details of who this was. That is the nub of the problem for the PPCs and despite bluff and bluster there is no easy way to overcome it.

 

Regards trading standards, it depends a lot on who you get. We have seen examples of trading standards advisers telling people to pay these unenforcable invoices. Many simply do not appreciate the wholly different basis of private tickets to council issued ones. It is a clever [problem] but a [problem] none the less.

[TideTurner]

Many thanks LA.

 

You have to wonder why Trading Standards have not got on to this, or do we have to involve BBC Watchdog?

[firstwithit]

If every one that was in the Gatwick Parking reported them to Crawley TS and also the TS local to CEL office and any other TS local to wherever else they are [causing problems] the sheer weight of complaints would make it their duty to investigate, surely.

[feralcat2]

From nemeses, --posting 258/ page 13, From your DLVA enqueries, it would appear that the name 'Creative Car Park' is a sudenum or (covert)trade name used by CEL to glean information from the DVLA by acting as a respectible and responsible business. (look up Creative Car Park on google and click 'company' on bar and a whole new profile/aspect opens up. see the logo at bottom of page.)

 

I harbour no doubts that if CEL correctly acted within the Code of Practice guidelines set by the OFT and the DVLA, then 90% of the parking issues which they themselves create would not transpire. They advertise all the usual car-parking facilities for payments ect, even resorting to branding in 'your company's name' which to me ,means a clandestine type approach, like those operations currently in use at Gatwick.

 

On the Creative website, please read company news, advisers, contact news, business development, contact customer service, an email address, the CEL addess & 33/35 Daws Lane, London NW7 4SD. and all relevant registration and business address's as applicable. It makes interseting reading.

[Sidewinder]

Some of the information on Creative's website makes for interesting reading:-

 

As well as providing us with sufficient accurate data for us to monitor your car park, TrafficGuard Analysis can also provide you with reports on:-

 

Customer Shopping Patterns

Repeat Visitors

Staff Parking Habits

Offender Alerts

Hot Lists

Parking Durations

Arrival & Departure Patterns

Prediction of Revenue Generation Possibilities

Parking Capacity

Car Park Congestion

We always remember that the car park is your property - and we enforce the rules that you require!

 

Parking spaces are available for your customers/clients

Increased security

Increased store revenue

Save thousands of pounds in car park management fees

No car park staff needed

Operates 24/7

 

 

We will provide you with a secure terminal with encrypted VPN access to our dedicated servers to enable your Control Centre to:

 

View all vehicles as they are identified. Any previous notes, police warnings etc will flash up. (How would they have that information?)

Search the parking history of any particular vehicle.

Register vehicles, if necessary, with a view to being alerted on arrival / departure from the site.

Access data pertaining to identified “offenders”, based on pre-defined criteria, for example if a vehicle has been identified as belonging to a member of staff and is recorded as entering the customer parking area and not departing within a pre-defined time, then the Control Centre can dispatch a member of staff to place a note on the vehicle.

Issue electronic permits for site contractors, visitors and disabled staff.

 

Hot List Alerts

Apart from being alerted to vehicles entering your car park that are on the police database, you could add a further list of vehicles belonging to known shoplifters or trouble makers (How can they have access to a Police database?)