Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[pin1onu]

Nice one. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with B**l sh*t.

 

Actually its true to form, as soon as they realise you aren't going to pay they drop it and move on to the next victim.

[aka]

Has anyone received a letter back from Mc Donalds as I wrote to them at the beginning of my troubles and I have not had a reply.

[scubasuzy]

:) MY thanks go to pin1onu and all others for all your advice, got my letter last week from McD's at gatwick saying that ticket has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken. Without all your help and advice this would have driven me nuts, but I stuck to my guns and kept sending letters back to them for photographic evidence and to contact the driver and not the registered keeper. Many letters went back and forth to CEL and to Newlyn with the same content, polite, but firm, and I wrote to McD's at the beginning of this fiasco and told them that the company they use are atrocious for their way in which they impersonate an 'official document' and which frankly scares the living daylights out of you at times. too was appalled that the dvla gave my personal details without my consent to these rogues. I rang dvla who said they would look into it (am still waiting for a reply). My original ticket was june 07 and it has taken this long to finally get it CANCELLEED!! yipeeeee. So to all others in the same rotten predicament, keep writing to them, and do keep copies of all your letter (should it ever get to the court situation and to prove to court you have tried to be reasonable) and ask for photographic evidence (which has still to materialize) and to get in touch with the driver and not registered keeper(ours is a company vehicle) and stick to your guns of not paying these dirty rotten cowboys. So to give you all the encouragement, keep at it and don't give in to these toe rags and keep your cheque books firmly under lock and key to avoid temptation in givng in to these scams!!!! DON'T PAY UP!!!

 

My letter from McD's states dated 29 Jan 08

 

Dear Mrs *****

 

Thank you for contacting us regarding your visit to our Gatwick Restaurant. I was very sorry to learn of your experience.

 

I can confirm that the parking ticket you received from Civil Enforcement Ltd has now been cancelled.

 

Be assured of our best attention at all times.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Kim Rezk

Customer Services Manager

 

Oh what joy when I opened this letter, so hope this encourages others to stick to their guns.

[pin1onu]

Great result.

 

And another CEL/Newlyn/Mc'D's bites the dust............

 

Hang in there those who are still going through the process you'll get there in the end.

[Sidewinder]

Purely out of interest I e mailed the Ministry of Justice regarding PPC activity at our local Hospital car park. The response which I received below (note from DVLA not MoJ) highlights once again the attitude which HMG through DVLA has towards the release of RK information.

 

It may help if I first explain that DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act (Data Protection Act) to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds for the purposes of registering and licensing vehicles, and to comply with the Act’s guiding principles. However, the Data Protection Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions the release of personal data where the law allows it and DVLA is not in a position to refuse those who have a legitimate right to receive information.

 

As you are aware, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 provides for the release of information from the vehicle register to, amongst others, anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it. ‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits. DVLA considers that pursuing civil claims in relation to car parking is a ‘reasonable cause.’ Unauthorised parking on private land is a widespread problem and landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. On the other hand, evidence of misconduct on the part of landowners (or their agents) in enforcing their claim is a factor that the DVLA does take into account when deciding whether to release information.

 

The vehicle keeper is the person with whom law enforcement authorities and private litigants can make first contact. Of course, if responsibility for an offence or other act lies elsewhere, the keeper should simply explain the circumstances.

 

DVLA does not and cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Therefore it has no influence over the time allowed to park, the value of charges imposed or any ‘grace period’ before tickets are issued. These and other representations should be made to the company.

 

The previous Minister of State for Transport has reviewed the regulations and announced 14 new measures designed to protect vehicle keepers from misuse of their information, provide clear and robust complaint procedures where misuse is alleged while allowing those who do have reasonable cause to get the data they need. Full details of the review and the new measures are available on the Department for Transport’s website at

www.dft.gov.uk/press/speechesstatements/statements/statdataukvehicle

 

Under the new measures, companies that request vehicle keeper data manually are now required to provide evidence that they are operating on the landowner’s instruction and confirm that adequate signage is in place. DVLA does not have any authority to dictate the colour, size or positioning of signs.

 

Technological advances have enabled many companies to employ ANPR style enforcement.

These companies may issue tickets through the post rather than place them onto a vehicle. It does not mean that companies that operate in this way are not entitled to receive information; they still meet the ‘reasonable cause’ criteria.

 

Once the Agency is satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ has been demonstrated, information will then be disclosed on the condition that it should only be used for the reasons it was requested. The Agency carries out ad-hoc audits on companies to ensure that enquiries are appropriate. Any evidence of abuse will be referred to the Information Commissioner for investigation and, when appropriate, prosecution.

 

Vehicle keepers are advised that their details may be released in a number of lawful circumstances on the front of the V5C Registration Certificate and in more detail in the INS 160 leaflet that accompanies it. A full list of the circumstances where the Agency has, in the past, released information, a list of the types of organisations that have received information, and details of what procedures enquirers have to follow to obtain information are published on the website at Release of information from DVLA records : Directgov - Motoring

 

DVLA does not sell personal information. Regulations allow DVLA to charge a fee for information under ‘reasonable cause’ provisions, but do not allow a profit to be made. The fee, currently £2.50, is levied to cover the cost of dealing with requests. This means that the applicant and not the taxpayer cover the associated administrative costs.

 

Missing the point as usual

 

Interestingly, Dr Stephen Ladyman's review (dated July 2006) of the release of information from DVLA records mentions:-

 

New Requirements for evidence of 'reasonable cause'

 

(4) For all applications where 'reasonable cause' relates to the pursuit of a penalty charge, evidence is required that a penalty scheme was indeed in place on that piece of land (e.g. that there was signage).

 

New Measures to ensure awareness of the vehicle keeper

 

That all those who receive data, as evidence of their 'reasonable behaviour' and as a condition of 'approved conditional access', include in any correspondence with the keeper a leaflet or statement advising them of:

• the 'reasonable cause' which formed the basis of the request
  
• the 'complaints' procedure by which a data subject can notify both DVLA and the Information Commissioner if they believe their data has been used inappropriately
  
• the appeals procedure (for the regulatory body) if they feel that, for example, a parking charge notice has been issued incorrectly.

Anybody been getting this information with their threatograms?

[Barnsley Boy]

I know we are preaching to the converted here, but how can "reasonable cause" relate to the pursuit of a penalty scheme. I strongly contend that it can't.

 

Reasonable cause surely does not extend to supporting something specifically disallowed under English Law. Call me cynical but I can't help feeling that receipt of all those £2.50s has turned DVLAs head.

[pin1onu]

but how can "reasonable cause" relate to the pursuit of a penalty scheme

IMO they are trying to muddy the waters between the charges that have statute backing - PCNs, FPNs etc - and PPC invoices. "Criminal" vs Civil for want of a better term. It almost a case of Orwellian Double-speak. One term fits all. It works for PCNs, FPNs so why not give our Civil counterparts the same benefit. And if it makes us some money at the same just call me Judas.

 

Call me cynical but I can't help feeling that receipt of all those £2.50s has turned DVLAs head.

 

It been said "A cynic is what an optimist calls a realist."

 

I can think of 9 million (£) real reasons why you might think as you do. (I beleive thats the approximate figure they made last year from the sale of our information)

 

But of course they are not seeking to make money are they. They are only seeking to recover their costs. (How many civil servants would this pay for?) And of course they are only interested in truth and justice (just not for the motorist) if they have "reasonable cause."

 

I'd love to hear the Secretary of State for Transport try and justify this outragous sum.

[TideTurner]

Private Litigants???

 

I was of the belief that none of these cases have been successful in Court, and that McDonalds are now giving out free Big Mac's if you made a complaint.

 

Is it not therefore the case that our information is being obtained deceptively under the guise of intended litigation, when it is simply being used to threaten people into paying supposed penalties.

 

After the recent shocking misplacement of public information by Government departments, I will be writing to the DVLA, and copying my MP, informing them that under no circumstances must they communicate any of my personal information unless it is to be used for the purposes of Law Enforcement, or they can support their communication of this information with a distinct reference to the relevant legislation or statute.

 

Certainly, they must not communicate it to any private company or individual.

 

This is NOT Public information.

 

Tide

[anarchon]

Well, well, well. After having sent the standard first response to 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' within the 10 days of me receiving their first letter, I have just received the first red threatogram (labeled 'Final reminder before legal action'). They haven't even acknowldged my initial 'contact the driver' letter and they are demanding the full amount of £150 within 7 days otherwise 'it will result in immediate County Court Summons, bailiffs and affect future ability to obtain credit'. I'm just a bit concerned about the difference between the 'PCN Issue date' as stated on the initial demand and the date I actually received the letter through the letter box (i.e. 4 days later) . I take it they haven't got a leg to stand on as they would have to prove to the court that I received the initial 'PCN' on such a date (if it ever gets that far and we start arguing over when the 10 days appeals period started). This can obviously only be done via recorded delivery.

 

Well, I'm going to send them the standard second response (i.e. please state which Act or statute law enables you to enforce this notice) and see what happens.

 

A

[Barnsley Boy]

We all know it won't be your "Final Demand" - this crowd have more comebacks than George Foreman

[jimbobjetset]

yep they strike again, this time richmond northyorkshire(coop carpark).I received a £45 fine if paid within 14 days. the letter was adressed to me the keeper of the car, although my wife was driving and i was in another part of the country. She has written a letter saying she was not aware of being over the 2 hour time limit(11 minutes allegedly) and if she was it was because of assisting elderly ladies to the car. so becuase she has addmitted to driving im not sure what to do next any help in dealing with these scoundrels will be gratefully received oh yeah they say they have photographic evedince! but as im sure you are all aware it will cost £10 to see it please help thanks

[onewaysystem]

This isn't what I wanted to find out but I thought I should share it....

 

3.2 of the DVLA Code of Conduct on Private Parking stated : “Notices giving full details of the parking contravention and the proposed course of action to be taken by the enforcer should be placed in a prominent position on the ‘offending’ vehicle without causing it damage. Vehicle keepers should be made aware that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA”.

 

This is referred to in other posts on this site.

 

However, it relates only to a Voluntary Code of Practice (VCOP) suggested by the DVLA. It was never compulsory. In any case it has been dropped since new legislation from Government came into force in recent months.

 

Department for Transport - Release of data from the UK vehicle registers

 

gives a list of 14 new measures proposed last year and evidentally now in place.

 

Release of information from DVLA records : Directgov - Motoring

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention,

and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them

. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

....If you think that your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, you should write to the Release of Information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AJ. You should include details of how the information has been misused and your vehicle registration mark. DVLA will investigate all allegations where information has been requested unlawfully and where appropriate, refer to the Information Commissioner for prosecution.

If you are not satisfied with the way DVLA has handled your complaint, you should contact the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow SK9 5AF.

Whilst DVLA is keen to ensure that information is released only in appropriate circumstances, it has no authority to arbitrate in disputes between parties. Disputes over circumstances leading to incidents etc must be decided between parties.

Advice from the Office of Fair Trading :

• there is currently no regulation of private parking enforcement companies - to March 2008
  
• request evidence of contravention (without charge) from enforcement Company and ask why a physical notice/ticket wasn't placed on your vehicle at the time of the incident
  
• Complain to your local MP

Unless you can prove the enforcement company has acted "unreasonably" (whatever that means) and has failed to follow the current guidelines - to March 2008 - in obtaining your details from the DVLA vehicle register then there is nothing in law to prevent them from fining you.

 

It's your call. We paid our fine.

[Zamzara]

Unless you can prove the enforcement company has acted "unreasonably" (whatever that means) and has failed to follow the current guidelines (to March 2008) in obtaining your details from the DVLA vehicle register then there is nothing in law to prevent them from fining you.

 

It's your call. We paid our fine.

 

The error in your reasoning is assuming that being allowed access to the information is the same as the fine being legally valid. It isn't. There is nothing in law allowing them to fine you.

[Barnsley Boy]

............Unless you can prove the enforcement company has acted "unreasonably" (whatever that means) and has failed to follow the current guidelines (to March 2008) in obtaining your details from the DVLA vehicle register then there is nothing in law to prevent them from fining you.

 

It's your call. We paid our fine.

 

More fool you!

 

As you say, it is my call and I didn't pay my "fine" [twice]. I am in good company. The main reason I didn't pay is that PPC parking tickets are not fines at all, just unenforceable rubbish. The law of the land is thankfully not the same as DLVA codes of conduct referring to release of information.

 

Sorry Zamzara - faster typing - you beat me to it.

[onewaysystem]

The error in your reasoning is assuming that being allowed access to the information is the same as the fine being legally valid. It isn't. There is nothing in law allowing them to fine you.

 

Perhaps the Office of Fair Trading should be advised.

[Sidewinder]

The OFT are well aware but as in so many other cases are very reluctant to do anything.

[princess esmerelda]

Princess Esmerelda here

Apologies if I have made a mess of doing this, I can't seem to work out exactly how to post on the forum.

 

Anyway I digress,just an update on the situation with C.E.L.

 

A relative of mine received a letter through the post from this company in January saying she had parked for over 3 hrs in the car park at the drive thru Ashford Kent, thus going over the alloted 'free time' of an hour and 45 mins.

 

She did not go out that day in her car so it could not have been her car in the car park.

 

I followed the excellent advice given on this forum from many of you, I had a very good reply from sidewinder whose advice I followed which was to set up a 'paper trail' however although I typed up the replies ready to send I did not post them, my thinking was to ignore and see what happens (maybe they would dissapear into the bowels of the earth)

 

No such luck! today I received the very unprofessional 'do not ignore letter' and advised to 'ignore at my peril!' from NEWLYN DEBT COLLECTORS

I now feel I should send off copies of the said letters and say basically 'I sent these letters to you on such and such a date, you have not replied etc etc.

 

I also feel that now is the time to contact watchdog, which, Trading Standards etc and send them copies of everything as I think from reading on this forum these people are just not going to go away, and I am getting rather fed up with receiving their 'Junk Mail'

 

Can anyone advise me on what the best practice would now be for me to do, as it seems If you contact them, 'they ignore what you are saying and still pester you' ' if you ignore them 'They still pester you'

 

Any help guidance and advice on what I should do now would be much appreciated.

 

Thank you in advance

[IIIUMINATI]

return to sender JUNK MAIL re post it back

[IIIUMINATI]

Data Protection Register - Entry Details

 

 

 

 

 

Registration Number: Z7559829

Date Registered: 16 January 2003 Registration Expires: 15 January 2009

 

Data Controller: NEWLYN PLC

 

Address:

180-188 NORTHOLT ROAD

SOUTH HARROW

HA2 0LT

[princess esmerelda]

Hi There!

 

Is there a reason why you have posted this?

 

Just looking at the address of Newlyn it is not the same as on the letter they have sent me.

 

Does this make a difference to the validity or legal standing of their letter?

 

Am I worrying for nothing, I must be honest it is getting to me a bit keep getting these threatning letters from them.

 

I can imagine some elderly person having a break down if they were to get these kind of letters through the post!

[pin1onu]

Hi There!

 

Is there a reason why you have posted this?

 

Just looking at the address of Newlyn it is not the same as on the letter they have sent me.

 

Does this make a difference to the validity or legal standing of their letter?

 

Am I worrying for nothing, I must be honest it is getting to me a bit keep getting these threatning letters from them.

 

I can imagine some elderly person having a break down if they were to get these kind of letters through the post!

 

They are running true to form. Newlyn are a Debt Collection Agency. DCA's write threatening letters everyday to intimidate people into paying. They are just that, threats. They can't force you to pay without taking you to court which is extremely rare in most cases.

 

If you want to get Newlyn off your back just write back telling them the debt is disputed. Under OFT guidelines they are obliged to refer the matter back to their client.

 

As to the the matter of a different address - Newlyn are a registered company - so what they should have on any correspondence is the registered address. You can check this at Companies house (Companies House) using Webcheck.

 

Under the Companies Act the registered address must appear on all documents (including letters and invoices). If they fail to put this address on you can report the breach to the compliance section of Companies House.

 

If the address is non-compliant you coould argue that you did not believe this to be an official document from Newlyn.

 

To put this to bed once and for all I'd suggest that you use Bernie's template letters or Sidewinders response. Send the responses.

 

After you get a reply from them send them a cease and desist letter then you can put it in the ignore pile for anything other than an official court summons. BTW an official court summons is extremely unlikely. Alternately you can add all the correspondence to a file and ready a harrassment claim against the buggers.

 

Once they get the idea that you're not a mug they'll move on.

[princess esmerelda]

Thanks so much!

I get very wary of these kinds of letters when I hear people going on about clamping,debt collectors coming to your door etc,etc

 

I will follow your advice and then forget about them.

 

Many Thanks!

[pin1onu]

Thanks so much!

I get very wary of these kinds of letters when I hear people going on about clamping,debt collectors coming to your door etc,etc

 

I will follow your advice and then forget about them.

 

Many Thanks!

You are wise to be wary. Clamping and bailiffs usually follow people either ignoring or not being aware of PCN's or FPN's which have statute backing and proper processes to follow. However as yours is a Civil matter which you can ignore unless you receive a summons.

[penelope pitstop 23]

removed

[Barnsley Boy]

PP,

 

Please don't worry unduly. No one here has heard of CEL proceeding with court action.

 

Newlyn are a firm of debt collectors / bailiffs. The important thing to remember is that, prior to legal action, they can't actually DO anything other than ask for money.

 

Being a "proper" debt collection agency they are actually easier to deal with than the tame PPC ones [where the parking company is just using different stationery pretending to be a debt recovery agency]

 

Just write back to Newlyn stating that the debt is denied and should be referred back to CEL. There is a template here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/119802-private-parking-tickets-template.html