Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[wrinx]

Agree entirely, look how long it took for clampers to be dealt with and how much of a public outcry it took.

 

This lot masquerade as "official" ticketers and don't have the same immediate impact of stopping people driving home, that enraged people previously.

 

wrinx

[chococat]

I got another letter off these [EDIT] people, same as a previous poster. A Newlyn letter looking for the full charge paid within 14 days else they MAY take me to court, which MAY result in bailiffs and MAY affect my credit rating.

 

Well i MAY be attacked by polar bears on my way to work, and shredded wheat MAY prevent heartattacks. They expect me to fall for this basic, almost childlike "legal" teminology. It's frankly embarrassing. If i followed the instructions of every letter i received i would have paid the original charge, and the extra charge twice to 2 different companies.

 

They're absolute amateurish chancers and i wouldnt trust them to even process a payment successfully even if i bowed to their laughable threats. They CANT take possession of any of my property without winning a case. Do they think i'm stupid? Any caller at my house will be firmly asked to leave, with 999 on my mobile ready at hand.

 

In summary: they're not even competent at their own idiotic endeavours. What chance do they think they have of me giving them money?

[DIGGER LADY]

I have just written to BBC Watchdog programme concerning the company Civil Enforcement Ltd.I paid a £60 fine by cheque which was cashed last August.I am now receiving threatening letters from a company called Newlyn PLC,which I believe is run by the same Directors.They are threatening to take me to court for a grand sum of £208.31.I can't wait.

These people are (edit),do not pay them.

 

Please all of you write to watchdog ar the BBC,lets expose them for what they are.

[Barnsley Boy]

Sorry to hear of your plight Digger Lady.

 

Such a pity that you did not discover this forum prior to paying this shower.

 

Still, your story is a lesson to us all. Don't pay because of lots of reasons, not least of which, even if you do pay, they will still come after you wanting more.

[DIGGER LADY]

Please email watchdog at the bbc.We will expose these people for what they really are.It disgusts me that they are intim,idating old people and that large reputable companies including supermarkets are using their services.

 

Please email watchdog @ the bbc and tell everyone else to do the same

[jet_jockey1]

Is doing absolutely nothing an option?

Having received an initial and now a follow up (7 days to pay) from CEL, how do they know if I have even received them? I understand that the Post Office lose enough mail every year for this to be a credible stance. If they are keen to press then I would have thought that recorded delivery would be a "must". Should I put my head above the parapet and send the first template letter? Thanks for your thoughts.

[Barnsley Boy]

Hi, there is a hot debate regarding best tactics to adopt with the [problematic]. Both ignore completely and reply appropriately have their merits. The balance of opinion on this forum is to reply, hence Bernie's template letters being included as "stickies". Do not engage with the [problematic] on their level, certainly do not get involved in their appeals process.

By all means use the templates, it probably won't make any difference to the [problematic], they routinely ignore what you send them anyway, but in the extremely unlikely event that they summons you, it does no harm to your case that you can show that you attempted to resolve the dispute prior to court.

[jet_jockey1]

I shall reply then using the first of the template letters. I believe I may also contact the DVLA and ask to whom they have released my details. Browsing around throws up the following links, and I include them here to save anyone else the search I hope they will be of some use, and if I have gone over old ground I apologise. This "thread" on this site and others is quite large and after a while it is easy to forget what has been read.

 

Lynne Jones MP

This site was last updated in Nov 2007 and essentially discusses the new code of conduct that the DVLA must abide by.

 

From the link above you can navigate to the DVLA and a further search will bring you to some pdf documents that list those companies that are approved for accessing the keeper information by electronic means.

 

Search

The above link is more direct, you might want to add http:// at the beginning, (I couldnt get it to paste properly and that is why it says "search"). Note that in the document dated 5th January 2007 and 22 November 2007 the company Civil Enforcement Ltd is not listed.

 

The Civil Enforcement Ltd Site is at

Civil Enforcement

Note that on this site that no reference is made to being a member of the BPA or The Security Industry Authority ( an important sounding name!!).

However if you find yourself at Creative Car Park Ltd

Creative Car Park

You will see an almost identical site with those "referees" shown clearly at the bottom of the page. Both sites have links entitled "resellers" and maybe CEL is a "franchise"?? or maybe CEL have stolen the other outfits web design. Creative Car Park Ltd may be the Creative Car Park Management Ltd listed in the November DVLA list. Maybe someone has done the research on this latter point. If there is a linkage, I would still question the legality of passing data from one company to the other.

[WebFerret]

Maybe someone has done the research on this latter point. If there is a linkage, I would still question the legality of passing data from one company to the other.

 

jet_jockey1 - very good work, and some insteresting information throws itself up in relation to the three companies involved (namley: Civil Enforcement Ltd, Creative Car Park Ltd & Creative Car Park Management Ltd).

 

I have also found this (link: FightBack Forums > Private PCN / Parking Ticket - Wild Bean Cafe BP Gatwick Connect Petrol Station!)

which demonstrates that people have already investigated these three companies in some detail, and makes for some interesting reading:

 

It would transpire, assuming this information is correct, and I can not find anything thus far to suggest it is not - that these 3 companies (Civil Enforcement Ltd, Creative Car Park Ltd & Creative Car Park Management Ltd) are all run (owned) by one Gary Wayne and opperate from 'Virtual Offices' at:

 

DBH House, Nottingham NG4 3BP (link:Nottingham Serviced Offices - Carlton Square) and

 

33-35 Daws Lane, London NW7 4SD (link: Virtual Office & Call Handling)

 

which offer: call answering, call forwarding, call messaging, fax & mail forwarding with 'services' starting from a little as £10 per month!

 

If you look up these three companies at Companies House (link:

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information) you will find that:

 

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD used to be CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SERVICES LTD until 11/01/2006

 

CREATIVE CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED used to be RHAPSODY COMPUTING LIMITED until 22/03/2002

 

CREATIVE CAR PARK LTD is a new business name incorporated 22/09/2005

 

This would in my view answer the question as to why both Civil Enforcement Ltd and Creative Car Park Ltd web sites look identical and use exactly the same images and descriptive advertising, for the very simple reason that they are both run by the same owner!

 

What concerns me most is how on earth a company with such a fickle establishment can have possibly gained creditation to be 'honoured' with the ability to recieve personal private data directly from the DVLA?

 

If one company 'known' to the DVLA can then seemingly pass on that same information 'at will' to ANY other 3rd party, then I ask where is the control to ensure our (the public's) personal & private information is not being missused in anyway?

 

It occured to me that by allowing this situation to continue, an unscrupulouse person or persons could be compiling a national database of all the registered keepers of veichles that are a 'soft' target - in other words, who can be 'invoiced' and 'conned' into paying these 'individuals' money by simply sending out demands for it, in what ever guise they wish?

 

UPDATE:

 

In addition I have just had a responce from 'The Head of Data Sharing and Protection at the DVLA, Mr. Paul Jeffrey's' via my MP in answer to my question about the legitimacy of the DVLA giving out person information - I'll be posting the responce under my original post entitled: The DVLA should be sued under the Data Protection Act? - (link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/123302-dvla-should-sued-under.html)

[Sidewinder]

Mr Wayne's exploits have long been documented.

 

HERE

 

HERE

 

HERE

 

HERE

 

AND HERE

 

AND JUSTIFYING HIS ACTIONS HERE

[jet_jockey1]

Webferret & Sidewinder, thanks for the info ..... it makes interesting reading.

 

I have just been to the 10 Downing Street site where there is a petition against the sort of activity displayed by these private parking companies.

 

Petition to: Create stronger legislation to protect motorists from private car parking companies.

 

I was suprised considering the depth of feeling evident on this web site that only 38 people have signed!

 

Just as an additional avenue of attack, maybe we should support this initiative as well!

[Barnsley Boy]

Webferret & Sidewinder, thanks for the info ..... it makes interesting reading.

 

I have just been to the 10 Downing Street site where there is a petition against the sort of activity displayed by these private parking companies.

 

Petition to: Create stronger legislation to protect motorists from private car parking companies.

 

I was suprised considering the depth of feeling evident on this web site that only 38 people have signed!

 

Just as an additional avenue of attack, maybe we should support this initiative as well!

 

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I just have no trust in the government. If you remember the clamping thing, that turned out badly. We were all expecting clamping to be outlawed but instead clampers were given a license. Go on a 5 day course, get a SIA licence and you've got a licence to print money. Who is to say that the private ticketing would not go the same way. I for one prefer the status quo, if you know your rights then you've OK.

[pin1onu]

Maybe I'm just being cynical but I just have no trust in the government. If you remember the clamping thing, that turned out badly. We were all expecting clamping to be outlawed but instead clampers were given a license. Go on a 5 day course, get a SIA licence and you've got a licence to print money. Who is to say that the private ticketing would not go the same way. I for one prefer the status quo, if you know your rights then you've OK.

 

I must say that I echo Barnsley Boys sentiment.

 

It's been said that "you should be careful what you wish for you may get it". I think many people thought the SI Legislation would regulate the clamping properly, restrict its use and set fair charges. It has done this to a small extent, some cowboys have been jailed. However the legislation failed to address the whole realm of legality which clamping is based on. It has also failed to address the whole parking contracts issues and given the extortionate amount that most clampers charge for release usually bearing no relationship to any "damages" caused by the alleged breach of the alleged contract, it has failed to address the Penalty Charges issue.

 

Given this I am somewhat sceptical about any attempt by Government to reign in the PPC cowboys with yet more legislation. I would suggest that if the Government really wanted to put a stop to this [problem] they give directions to the DVLA to stop passing out the details of the RK to the PPCs. That would render a lot of these invoices in-effective. However it would in all likelihood mean we would see a rise in the number of vehicles being clamped or other more unpleasant means of making people pay.

 

I think that as long as sites like this exist and people increasingly use the internet then PPC's days of making money through ignorance are numbered. What I think is needed is a high profile campaign in the media to alert people to this [problem] and the ways and means of fighting it. Perhaps one of the consumer affairs programs such as Watchdog might take up the case or maybe "rogue traders". Perhaps a few e-mails from the some on this site might make the programme makers listen - it seemed to work for the bank charges.

[jet_jockey1]

With some considered thought I believe you are both right!

 

I agree that a high profile campaign would be the best way forward, if nothing else, it would educate those people who feel sufficiently intimidated to part with their money unnecessarily.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

With some considered thought I believe you are both right!

 

I agree that a high profile campaign would be the best way forward, if nothing else, it would educate those people who feel sufficiently intimidated to part with their money unnecessarily.

 

I would exercise caution.

 

I would suspect that if the govt or some quango (OFT) got this onto their radar the result would be that private ticketing would be put onto a statutory footing and we would find ourselves in a potentially worse position.

 

Remember we have a govt who are fundamentally against motorists.

[pin1onu]

I would exercise caution.

 

I would suspect that if the govt or some quango (OFT) got this onto their radar the result would be that private ticketing would be put onto a statutory footing and we would find ourselves in a potentially worse position.

 

Remember we have a govt who are fundamentally against motorists.

 

God forbid they lump the PPC's under the control of the SIA like they do with the clampers - I suspect this would be the likely destination if the PPCs were to be regulated.

 

The SIA at the moment seem to be about as effective as a chocolate teapot. If anyone saw BBC Panorama on Monday but it showed the SIA in a pretty bad light.

 

This is a quote from the BBC website "An official close to the top of the regulator of Britain's £7billion security industry has told BBC One's Panorama that the industry is being infiltrated and illegally run by criminals exploiting loop holes in the law." (Full article: here)

 

The last part sounds like a description of the tactics of some of the PPC's.

[Carriep]

Hi,

 

I work for a BBC Consumer Affairs programme titled "Don't Get Done, Get Dom", in which presenter Dominic Littlewood attempts to resolve issues which have arisen between consumers and companies.

 

We are currently filming our third series, and would be very keen to hear from anyone who is experiencing consumer difficulties.

 

If you would like to talk to us, please get in touch at:

 

[email protected]

02072785052

 

Thanks very much,

 

Simon

[notbestpleased]

Hi all, I'm also a 1st timer on here.

I have one further letter, after i had sent the letter recommended ( in return received the Response to Representation)

 

A letter from Newlyn asking for £208.13? a very intimidating letter, stating they have been instructed by Civil Enforcement ltd to recover the Parking Charge Notice. In very bold "DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER" and to call to discuss payment if not "FURTHER ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AT CONSIDERABLE COST TO YOU IF THE DEBT IS NOT CLEARED".

 

So my question is, what now?

I am tempted to instruct a solicitor?

Thoughts and ideas welcome.

[notbestpleased]

Sorry, I have just found the latest posts and they have pretty much answered the questions.

All i can say is I take comfort that i am not the only one against the **** of the Earth.

Thank you to everyone.

[Sidewinder]

Hi all, I'm also a 1st timer on here.

I have one further letter, after i had sent the letter recommended ( in return received the Response to Representation)

 

A letter from Newlyn asking for £208.13? a very intimidating letter, stating they have been instructed by Civil Enforcement ltd to recover the Parking Charge Notice. In very bold "DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER" and to call to discuss payment if not "FURTHER ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AT CONSIDERABLE COST TO YOU IF THE DEBT IS NOT CLEARED".

 

So my question is, what now?

I am tempted to instruct a solicitor?

Thoughts and ideas welcome.

 

 

Don't waste your money on a solicitor. If you read back over a few of the many posts in this thread, you have received the standard threatogram from Newlyn which is about as toothless as my old Grandad. If you feel so inclined to spend the money on a stamp, then write to advise them that the points raised in your dealings with their client have not been answered and that as the matter is formally in dispute. Under the OFT guidelines on debt collection, they must cease collection activity and refer the matter back to their client - they almost certainly won't, but every letter written demonstrates an attempt to resolve the matter on your part.

 

This is following a traditional pattern - Newlyn will probably ignore you then say that the file is being passed back to be prepared for legal action, then you will get a 'last chance' letter from CEL and ultimately the letters will stop, particularly if you send a 'I have told you the situation-you have failed to answer the points raised-now sue me and I will be happy to defend and counterclaim for costs' letter.

[wrinx]

Update: Yet another "Do not ignore this letter" and "Notice prior to county court proceedings" despite Newlyn stating they would be sending my file back to CEL.

 

Duly ignoring....

 

wrinx

[adamna]

Under the OFT guidelines on debt collection, they must cease collection activity and refer the matter back to their client - they almost certainly won't, but every letter written demonstrates an attempt to resolve the matter on your part.

Is this correct? Anyone got a link to those guidelines. It could be ever so helpful.

 

My issue isn't with a PPC, but an LA, but if it is correct, and they trangress the guidelines, what can be done? My angle is that bailiffs (debt collectors) act on behalf of a body that must be answerable for the actions of their agents. Generally the 'hirer' supports the actions of the 'dogs' even if you continue to dispute the debt because they applied to TEC for this bit of paper and got it. However, if you notify them in advance that the process is flawed, is that enough not to need a PE3, but refer the matter back to teh LA? Indeed, could it be enough ti challenge them not to have applied for an Order for Recovery to overturn in the first place? Some folk at LA's just don't read or answer letters it seems. A telephone operative called 'Damien' once told me 'there's no point writing letters'. How right he was. They get to choose their own fake names.

 

Or is Public Parking Control different?

[robin9342]

Hi,

 

I work for a BBC Consumer Affairs programme titled "Don't Get Done, Get Dom", in which presenter Dominic Littlewood attempts to resolve issues which have arisen between consumers and companies.

 

We are currently filming our third series, and would be very keen to hear from anyone who is experiencing consumer difficulties.

 

If you would like to talk to us, please get in touch at:

 

[email protected]

02072785052

 

Thanks very much,

 

Simon

 

MODS: Could this be made a sticky pls?

[Sidewinder]

OFT Guidelines HERE as requested.

[adamna]

Thanks, will have a good read when I get back from work - to my second job, reading things like that! What sanctions are there for breaking guidelines? A slap on the wrist?