Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[londoncass]

The vast majority of all motor insurance policy holders are insured to drive any vehicle at any time with the owner's permission. Asking the insurance company would be a waste of time. In this country, the legal requirement is for the driver to be insured to use the vehicle; there is no legal obligation whatsoever to insure a vehicle

 

Logbook (V5C) shows registered keeper, not regular keeper

 

Not sure about that... its a legal requirement for any car on the road to have an insurance policy. For example, if it was parked in a public place and it blew up, it would need 3rd party liability cover!!

[JawD]

And me. After ignoring their last two letters, Ive also now had one from Newlyn Plc who seem to be a debt recovery company.

 

Shredded.

[lamma]

Not sure about that... its a legal requirement for any car on the road to have an insurance policy. For example, if it was parked in a public place and it blew up, it would need 3rd party liability cover!!

 

cars are not insured. Drivers are.

[JonCris]

Correct lamma but any vehicle on a public road or where the public have access MUST be insured otherwise it can be taken away & crushed. It must also be taxed if parked in a place that is maintained via public funds ie social housing Oh you can be convicted of DD even on your own property if the public have access

[Springwell]

Hi Cob390,

 

it must have been be a mail merge day as I received my 1st letter from Newlyn yesterday too! Which I am also ignoring, as you say none of the letters were issued recorded delivery so what proof is there that I actually received them. It also seems that the initial charge of £40 if paid within £40 days or £90 after has now increased to £195! Blimey what interest rate are they charging - they can go and jump.

[My Real Name]

Correct lamma but any vehicle on a public road or where the public have access MUST be insured otherwise it can be taken away & crushed.

Is there a specific statute / instrument relating to this requirement?

[patdavies]

S.143 of the RTA 1988 lays out the requirement for insurance

 

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

 

The pertinent word is 'use'. Does this include being left parked?

 

The Police seizures are for vehicles being driven (ie used) without insurance

[kiptower]

It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force a relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act.

(Road Traffic Act 1988 s143 (C2)

 

its in the defination of the work "USED" it was changed from the word DRIVEN or similar,

 

a vehicle parked on a public highway is deamed "USED"

 

as far as I can see from the RTA

[JonCris]

Correct if it's on a public road it's considered as being 'used' - there is no allowance for being 'parked' & if there was the statute would almost certainly say so

[cabbagebike]

I spoke too soon... It's here... The amount has doubled and the letter's now from the usual other party involved. Like before, it'll be gathering dust with the previous ones.

 

How long until the next one?

 

Well... not very long! Same amount, similar letter and will get the same response from me... None

 

Will keep this updated as usual.

[freakyleaky]

Please read the site rules before posting.

 

Forum rules. Please read these before posting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

[gee'z]

Hi all,

 

First poster here, have recently received a final notice from CEL for overstaying a free carpark by 30mins.

 

Having read all the previous advice I have a few questions.

 

-they have stated that if I do not pay I will be served with a county court summons. . . . I live in Scotland and the offence happened at my local Co-op and in Scotland we do not have county courts?

 

Does anyone have any advice with CEL in Scotland and know whether this error on their part makes any difference to the PCN?

 

Just on a final note the Co-op has since ceased trading therefore all CEL signage has gone so I have been unable to check the terms of my so-called contract with CEL.

 

Thanks in advance G'eez

[crem]

Hi all,

 

First poster here, have recently received a final notice from CEL for overstaying a free carpark by 30mins.

 

Having read all the previous advice I have a few questions.

 

-they have stated that if I do not pay I will be served with a county court summons. . . . I live in Scotland and the offence happened at my local Co-op and in Scotland we do not have county courts?

haha, well you can't expect a PPC to understand there are differences between different countrys can ya

 

Does anyone have any advice with CEL in Scotland and know whether this error on their part makes any difference to the PCN?

No. It was crap before and it is still crap following that "error"

Just on a final note the Co-op has since ceased trading therefore all CEL signage has gone so I have been unable to check the terms of my so-called contract with CEL.

As you obviously didn't read them before parking, there can't be a "contract" in the first place then.

 

Thanks in advance G'eez

 

Do not write to them

Do not telephone them

Do not reply to any of their letters

DO NOT PAY THEM

[sy278]

Hi All,

 

Ok seems Civil Enforcment Ltd are a bunch of chancers.

 

I have recieved a PCN from them today for the vehicle breaching the limited free stay allowance.

 

They are demanding £70 within 28 days, reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days.

 

They claim to have photgraphic evidence and if I require to see this I need to send them a cheque for £10 (aye that will be right!) I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time though I am the registered keeper. I believe I am also not required to disclose who was the driver is that correct?

 

A few things have struck me as odd about this notice which looks very official (looks similar to a road tax renewal notice from DVLA at first glance), except it doesn't explain why it's been sent by post - I believe it is required to do so - it also doesn't have the companys registered number or registered address on it, it does have an address in Liverpool for remittance.

 

A few other websites lead me to believe they don't actually have any right to send this notice:

 

Can someone advise what the status is of their claim.

 

If it makes any difference, the parking contravention took place at a sopping centre in Irvine, Scotland.

 

The Vehicle was also parked there for approx 30 mins more than signed, but was also in a disabled bay, and was displaying a blue badge.

 

I am uncertain if there are any signed differences for disabled parking.

 

 

One other thing, I am unconvinced DVLA should have handed them any data on my vehicle, can any one asdvise on this as if this is also a contravention I will make a complaint to the information commissioner.

 

All advice greatly appreciated.

 

 

Hi All, I have now recieved a letter from Newlyn Plc, demanding payment of £145.

 

Should I reply to this, or remain silent again?

 

 

I am very concerened about my credit history/rating

[My Real Name]

Hi All, I have now recieved a letter from Newlyn Plc, demanding payment of £145.

 

Should I reply to this, or remain silent again?

 

I am very concerened about my credit history/rating

Do not write to them

Do not telephone them

Do not reply to any of their letters

DO NOT PAY THEM

 

You're credit rating is safe unless you refuse to, or are unable to pay an amount ordered by the court. Which is extremely unlikely.

[letshelp]

Hi All, I have now recieved a letter from Newlyn Plc, demanding payment of £145.

 

Should I reply to this, or remain silent again?

 

 

I am very concerened about my credit history/rating

Carry on ignoring, they cannot touch your credit rating whatsoever, it is all just bluff to frighten you into paying.

regards

[cob390]

Hi guys, firstly thanks to all. The info contained here and on this site is invaluable.

 

Well i to have received the first two demands from CEL and now one today from NEWLYN. I have chosen not to waste my time with these a holes and will ignore all their efforts to extract money from me.

 

It seems there are two ways to go correspond or ignore. To correspond gives them ammo, to ignore gives them nothing. Anyway who is to say i have ever received any notifications from any of them. Many thousands of letters go astray everyday.

 

Heres waiting for the next even more threatening letter lol.

 

Cob

 

OK so another Newlyn letter arrived in the last few days. This one slightly more threatening than the first in they are now saying and i quote

"We would like to provide you with the opportunity to pay the debt prior to proceedings being issued at the Count Court. Failure to clear the amount in full may result in the debt being taken to court at considerable further cost to you."

 

Go take a running jump.

 

Cob390

[Anti Scammer]

I have been targeted by CEL ,these thugs. My wife visited a car park in Coatbridge, Scotland around midnight, for 34 seconds. But they have reversed the times in and out so it looks like nearly 24 hours.

 

There was of course no parking ticket. the penalty is £90 or £60 if less than 28 days. The shopping complex agreed on the phone from CCTV footage that the times were reversed. ie 23:59:51 to 00:00:35 instead of 00:00:35 to 23:59:51 as they claimed, however they told me to write to CEL explaining and referring the explanation back to the complex.

 

 

What gets me is that there appears no appeal procedure. You can't get through to CEL by phone, they don't answer. How can a company just send out a demand for payment without proof? Where is the ombudsman or licensing authority? Where is the code of practice? Where are my rights, civil or human or am I not sufficiently criminal to have rights?

 

Surprisingly solicitors either 'don;t deal with these issues or are to busy to look at it. Of the 12 or so we visited, only one offered advice and that was to talk to trading standards and that wasn't a resounding success.

 

Anyway I have sent recorded letters to complex and CEL, and written to local paper and MSP. ...and will keep writing

Further to above I took advice from consumer office and sent registered letter to CEL and also shopping centre explaining their error and saying I would not pay. Consumer office said they must reply within 14 days to continue and so far over 14 days since receipt of letters no reply. I am still going to shout at them and anyone else who will listen though. Nothing back from local MSP though. Data Protection people said they will look into why DVLC gave out my details, but have not got back yet. DVLC replied in length, basically saying anyone who can show good reason can get information sent to them,,,,oh and also paying a fee of £2.50, So you see the DVLC/government are all involved in these scams. What chance have we..

 

See below:

 

Thank you for your email received on 25/6/09. Your email reference number is xxxxx.

 

It may help if I explain that Regulation 27 (1)(e) of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires the Agency to release information to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ for their request. ‘Reasonable cause is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits. Regulation 27 (2) allows a fee to be charged for information unreleased under the ‘reasonable cause’ provisions.

 

No profit is made from the release of vehicle keeper details to third parties. The fee, currently £2.50 is levied to recover the cost of dealing with a request. This means the applicant and not the taxpayer cover the associated administrative costs.

 

The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information. Insufficient information or use of data outside the ‘reasonable cause’ provisions will mean refusal of the application.

 

The Agency does make people aware of the circumstances in which personal data is released. The Vehicle Registration Document (V5C) includes a note on the front explaining that keeper details may be released for a variety of lawful purposes and a more comprehensive explanation is contained in the leaflet INS 160 that accompanies the V5C.

 

DVLA’s links with private companies are operated in the context of clear terms of agreement. Private companies that request information are required to provide a business résumé of their operations detailing how they meet ‘reasonable cause’ and how that information will be used.

 

Companies that request information for the purpose of enforcing parking restrictions on private land have to complete the form V888/3 and sign the declaration that warns them that it is offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to falsely obtain personal information. They also have to provide the necessary evidence to support their request and to confirm that a parking charge scheme is in operation.

This does not infringe the DPA and the Information Commissioner is aware that personal data on the vehicle register can be used this way.

 

Once the Agency is satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ is demonstrated, information will then be disclosed on the condition that it relate to and will only be used for an enquiry relating to the identification of a vehicle keeper for a parking contravention or trespass on private property. The Agency has the right to carry out ad hoc audits to ensure that all enquiries are appropriate.

 

Car park enforcement companies are not regulated and even if they were it would fall outside the remit of the DVLA. The Agency does not and can not regulate any aspect of a private company’s business, therefore is unable to influence the value of the penalties imposed or the time allowed to park.

 

Whilst seeking to ensure that information is only released in appropriate circumstances the Agency cannot arbitrate in disputes between parties. Circumstances relating to an incident and appeals should be made directly to the company.

 

Further details on the circumstances that the Agency has, in the past, considered to meet ‘reasonable cause ’ and a list of bodies who have received data is published on the website at

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/AdviceOnKeepingYour Vehicle/DG_4022066

 

 

Do not reply to this email. If you wish to contact us again about this response then please use our Reply Form or copy and paste the following URL in to your browser:

 

https://emaildvla.direct.gov.uk/emaildvla/cegemail/directgov/en/reply_form_vehicles.html

 

When filling in the form the email reference number XXXXXwill be required.

 

Regards

 

Carl James

Customer Enquiries Group

DVLA

[lamma]

v888/2 not v888/3. Bring up breach of BPA CoP with the DVLA FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned and report TS to CEL for violation of Results within legislation - Statute Law Database plus as many of these as apply http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face

[Anti Scammer]

Thanks, it all looks complex. I meant TS when I said consumer office, but they didn't seem very enthusiastic anyway, only gave advice to send registered denial to CEL and give me a case number. Anyway I have received a letter from CEL kindly agreeing to cancel the notice. What is significance of V888/2 and V88/3 difference?

 

I'm still not happy though that a bunch of thugs can legally demand money, and the DVLA are willing accomplices. I think I should get compensation for time and money spent on their error also. Overstaying parking/no harm done = £60. Time, money and worry showing innocence = tough. Something is rotten in the state of the UK

[everton79]

I hope somebody can advise me on this company as I am also having problems. I used to work as a Manager at a bingo club in London. Since I left they have used a Parking Management company (civil enforcement ltd) to monitor their car park (good decision as we used to have real problems). Basically the procedure is that if you visit the club you have to insert your registration number into a computer inside the club to validate your right to be there and I have done this on a few occasions.

 

However, a couple of weeks ago I visited the club to basically "say hi" to the management there and I arrived 25 minutes prior to opening and was advised the club was closed, I saw an ex-colleague in the car park and had a 10 minute chat and then went on my way not thinking anymore of it. I was then shocked when a £150 fine (£75 within 14 days) came through so I emailed an appeal stating that the management of the club are always accommodating of me being there as an ex-colleague and that there was no way I could have input my reg number as the club wasn't open but the car park was. I received a standard letter back basically ignoring my mitigating circumstances and just saying that I must pay the fine. I contacted the club and the club manager has sent them an email backing up my story but she has said that she can't guarantee they will cancel the notice as they are about to end their contract with civil enforcement ltd and they are not very helpful at the best of times.......I'm not paying this out of principal although I am worried that the amount will increase if I don't pay it and I am not sure where I stand legally - Can anyone advise?

[crem]

Completely ignore anything and everything they send you short of official stamped court papers. Please don't hold your breath waiting for these as this could be harmful to your health.

[Anti Scammer]

problem with that is if papers do turn up, and cost has now esculated to several hundred pounds, could court find in their favour, also can they not go to court behind your back? and get a warrant to send their thugs round. Not sure I would want to risk it.

 

P.S. Everton 79, Doesn't look like it was a good decicision for your ex-club to employ CEL, as your ex club is now dumping them acrimoniously.

[crem]

problem with that is if papers do turn up, and cost has now esculated to several hundred pounds,

No. Court would only uphold the original charge, not any additional costs the PPC makes up

 

could court find in their favour, also can they not go to court behind your back?

No, you can't be taken to court "secretly". Court would summons you and you would be entitled to defend.

 

and get a warrant to send their thugs round.

Likewise, this can't happen without you knowing

Not sure I would want to risk it.

The "risk" is well worth it. Only 0.0001% chace of being taken to court, and even less chance of loosing.

 

P.S. Everton 79, Doesn't look like it was a good decicision for your ex-club to employ CEL, as your ex club is now dumping them acrimoniously.

 

 

 

..

[the_freedom_trail]

Ignore, ignore, ignore