Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[nick20045]

Ok. Here is a totally different question. (Well I have not seen it yet but I am still up to page 33 reading all the posts and learning).

 

Q: What if you get a notice form a PPC and the address where they say the car has been photo'd is totally wrong? i.e. If you go on the McDonalds site and you type in the town it comes up with a totally different address and different postcode?

 

I would take it that, that mistake automatically cancels. But just asking for clarification.

 

Thanks.

Edited August 24, 2009 by nick20045

[nick20045]

The decision in Combined Parking Solutions V Stephen James Thomas hinged on the judge's conclusion that on the balance of probabilities the defendant was the driver: CPS had apparently done their homework and adduced some rationale that convinced the judge. So the case succeeded because CPS persuaded the judge that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant was the driver. The claim was not made against the Keeper as Keeper of the vehicle, but because he was believed to be the driver. It's worth having a look at the court transcript and forming a view as to whether the defendant was able to put up a credible argument to say that he wasn't the driver on that occasion. If the criterion of proof had been "beyond all reasonable doubt", the outcome might have been different. You might consider how closely the details of this case match your own situation.

Any chance to a link to read the details? Thanks.

[WebFerret]

Any chance to a link to read the details? Thanks.

 

Try this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county.html

 

The title does not reflect the case cos two threads got merged into one as they both were regarding the same PPC - but if you skip through the first bit then you will find reference to the Thomas case ect.

[nick20045]

Try this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/144471-perky-defeated-oldham-county.html

 

The title does not reflect the case cos two threads got merged into one as they both were regarding the same PPC - but if you skip through the first bit then you will find reference to the Thomas case ect.

Thanks. Have just read 45 pages on this thread. Will give it a read tomorrow.

 

But at least I learnt what the word "Perky" means. There was a post earlier on in this thread about some member calling (what seems) a lady "Perky" and for a moment I thought she was offended cos the member might have been talking about her breasts :D. Oh welllllllll............ the more you read the more you learn

[Woodchopper]

Try this link to see the court transcript posted by let-there-be-light:

 

PPC - CPS defeats a defence submitted by CAG/PEPIPOO - FightBack Forums

 

Noseyparker's comments might also be of some interest.

[nick20045]

Try this link to see the court transcript posted by let-there-be-light:

 

PPC - CPS defeats a defence submitted by CAG/PEPIPOO - FightBack Forums

 

Noseyparker's comments might also be of some interest.

Cheers for the link. Like I said after reading 45 pages on here I was starting to go crosseyed Well first timer on here so got loads to read and learn I guess

[cirian75]

*delete me*

Edited August 24, 2009 by cirian75

[Troon1968]

I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd as my car was parked in the Rivergate Shopping Centre car park in Irvine, Scotland for 50 minutes longer than the permitted 3 hour free period. I was not the driver nor present at the time however the driver was in the Shopping Centre for this entire period and more annoying perhaps was spending money in there as well.

 

I replied to the initial PCN using the template advising I was not the driver and nor was I obliged to advise them who the driver was. I unsurprisingly received a standard letter in response stating that they had considered the matters raised in my letter, I did not raise any issues, and that as the registered keeper they continued to hold me responsible. They also advised in this letter that "the enforcement notice remains valid as the ticket was correctly issued" - however no such ticket was issued as they have used CCTV to time the date of arrival and departure and no tickets or other enforcement is used in the carpark. They also advised that unless payment was received they would issue proceedings in the County Court! - strange given that scots law surely applies

 

I simply responded to this letter again advising that I was not the driver, that I was not obliged to disclose who was, and not to contact me again. I have today received from CEL a letter advising that they have already expended considerable time to my representations and that they cannot continue corresponding with me and that failure to pay will result in the matter being forwarded to a collection agency for recovery.

 

i am now simply going to ignore any further contact however I was interested to know if anybody else had received similar correspondence for a Scottish car park and what their views were?

 

Thanks

[juliusceasor]

They also advised that unless payment was received they would issue proceedings in the County Court! - strange given that scots law surely applies

 

I have today received from CEL a letter advising that they have already expended considerable time to my representations and that they cannot continue corresponding with me and that failure to pay will result in the matter being forwarded to a collection agency for recovery.

 

Scottish law may apply unless their terms and conditions specify English law that's my opinion.

 

The collection agency can only collect a debt that is established in court as owing. If you hear back from the collection agency either ignore it or write back and state the matter is in dispute and therefore they cannot act on behalf of their client.

[WebFerret]

@Troon1968

 

You've already corresponded enough with these jokers - they only have a claim against the driver, which you've already clearly stated you were not - the rest is their problem. - Simply ignore from now on - in the extremely unlikly event it goes to court, it would be a very short hearing if they are unable to prove you where the driver (don't forget the onus is on them to prove anything, it is not for you to have prove you weren't).

 

I would write directly to Kelvin Reynolds, Director of Technical Services at the BPA and complain about this company's 'tactics', for apparently he doesn't think this level of harassment goes on!

 

You can have a read here of what his current perception of PPCs is - lol

The private parking industry hits back? | Martin's Blog…

[letshelp]

Agree with WebFerret, excellent advice.

regards

[nick20045]

I will be honest. I fail to see why you do not just take the mickeey out of these people.

 

I mean we have all heard of [problematic] like Russian and Ukranian and Nigerian [problematic]. Some of us just wind them in and take them for a ride..........

 

Check your "alleged PCN". See if you can find faults with it. Write a letter and just put in an envelope with NO sender on the back and NO stamp on it and post it. They should get charged for the stamp fee = cost.

 

Last one I got said "Drive Thru" at XYZ street and YYZ town and gave a postcode.

 

I wrote back saying that Any Street in the UK is a "Drive Thru" (as that is what you do in a street) and then I took all the spam mail I had received through my letterbox over about a month (it had been accumulating to put for recycling) and put all that in as well in the envelope. I would guess a rough figure of say £4 in postage weight for the envelope i posted!!!!!!!!!

 

Never heard back from them.

 

Next one, I have just received my new yellow pages and that will be in the post to them :D.

 

And yes I am a sod :grin:

[crem]

I very much doubt they ever collect, and pay for, any un-stamped mail addressed to them,

[AcidC4]

Hi,

 

Having read this issue with Civil Enforcement Ltd i have taken the great advice and decided to fight these Sharks i was going to go down the route of ignore but decided against it.

 

I got a letter with them wanting £75 pounds this was my reply

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

With regards to your Parking fine "I refer to the above Parking Notice and subsequent warning letter demanding payment of a penalty charge several months later. You state in your correspondence that terms and conditions were 'clearly and prominently displayed' on your client’s premises and therefore the inference is that by entering your client’s premises the driver of a vehicle has a legal obligation to abide by, and pay any charges incurred, under the terms and conditions, if you can supply me with photographic evidence of the driver entering and exiting I will be able to check the possible driver at the time.

I also noticed you wish to charge £10 for this evidence that I will refuse to pay.

 

I have now recieved a letter today increasing the amount to £150 my reply is now going to be unless anyone thinks otherwise or maybe change?

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

With regards to your Parking fine "I refer to the above Parking Notice and subsequent warning letter demanding payment of a penalty charge several months later.

I have asked you to provide the photographic evidence to substantiate your claim against the driver and you have not done so. I feel that I have done all that I can to assist you. Unless you provide evidence to substantiate your claim against the driver I shall be unable to help you further in this matter as my previous correspondence requested.

 

 

As you may be aware, in Scottish law, there is no such procedure whereby any privately owned Parking Control company may lawfully impose penalty charges upon any vehicle owner parked in private property, even where there is a contract in place between the owners of the property and your company. This may be standard practice in England! but it is not in Scotland.

 

I have taken legal advice on this matter and I am advised that you have no statutory powers to issue penalty charges in Scotland. Your actions are unlawful and may be tantamount to extortion and theft. I refer you to Scots case law whereby:

‘In Scotland, wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. It was banned under a ruling in the sheriff court by the case of Black v Carmichael, 1992, SCCR 709, where a sheriff ruled that wheel-clamping was found to constitute criminal offences of extortion and theft.’

 

I am advised that Civil Penalty Charge procedures may be regarded in similar terms and as such, since there is no offence to enforce, you have no basis in law under which you have a right to take court action. You should also be advised that in your letter you warn that subsequent enforcement action would be carried out. I should advise you that English Bailiffs have no legal authority in Scotland and any action taken by them would be regarded as a criminal offence. There is no obligation in Scotland to pay charges to private companies who base their demands on contract or trespass law (not criminal law or decriminalized parking regulations) and have no powers under any Road Traffic legislation to force a vehicle owner to declare who was driving the car at the time of the alleged trespass or breach of contract, i.e. the person who trespassed or breached the alleged contract. This is not a Penalty Charge Notice as prescribed in law, even if it purports to be so. It is an invoice for alleged breach of accepted contractual terms or an offer to settle before court action for damages due to trespass.

 

If you persist in this matter, I will have no option but to report this to the police as threatening behaviour tantamount to extortion and theft.

 

If you intend to raise an action in court I am advised that I should obtain from you a copy of the agreement between yourselves and your client under which you have a legal right to impose parking charges, together with a copy of the appropriate legislation upon which you intend to found jurisdiction, In order that I may consult my solicitor in order to prepare a defense to any action. I should be grateful, therefore, if you would forward these to me as soon as possible."

 

Kind Regards

xxx

 

just to let you all know i wasnt even in the country when this awful crime took

place .

Edited September 2, 2009 by AcidC4
fonts?

[pin1onu]

I can tell you in advance what their reply will be.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your appeal. We have considered your circumstances and feel that in the current economic client that we want your money and, therefore, your appeal has been rejected.

 

Please pay the amount owing immediately. Failure to do so.....etc

 

[AcidC4]

Aww don't spoil it

 

Maybe start a donation thread? as I dont want these sharks going out of business before I have my wicked way with them

[nick20045]

In your letter you mention English Bailiffs. Think you mean Debt collectors not Bailiffs.

 

Bailiffs can only intervene after a Court Order and if the money is not paid within the stipulated time. Debt Collectors (even in England) have no power whatsoever and you can just ask them to leave and not even talk to them. If they do not leave or try to force their way in your home then you can call the police and get them shifted.

[AcidC4]

Thanks for that Nick i shall have my phone in hand to call the Mother-in-law just in case they travel up to Scotland

 

My concern was in there scary letter it said

 

Failure to pay the full amount within seven days of this notice will result in

us issuing an immediate County Court Summons against you (Hard job there then since there isn't such a thing in Scotland as a County Court?)

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/

 

A warrant may then be issued to Bailiffs to recover the amounts due,plus

court fees,bailiff costs and intrest (Hard job there again since Bailiffs are illegal in Scotland for there own protection)

Edited September 2, 2009 by AcidC4
website

[lamma]

Lies and rubbish from a PPC. big surprise not.

[londoncass]

An immediate court summons... There is no such thing.. Anyone who deals with the courts regularly like I do (I'm self employed and spend my life chasing debts!) can tell you that to actually get your day in court these days takes on average about 3-6 months!!

[Moishedayan]

Can't believe these people are still allowed to operate. Had a run in with them in 2006 on the Gatwick site. Didn't pay them but, I did get them to change all their signs down there etc ... I Think there no longer in Gatwick, can anyone confirm?

[alex08]

Have just received PCN from Civil Enforcement ltd. Different address (Liverpool) same number. It asks for £90 reduced to £45 for quick payment. Am I ignoring or sending template letter?

[nick20045]

Some say not to waste a stamp and due to envoirment and greenhouse effect save on paper.

 

Some say that IF it goes to court then at least you DID write.

 

My son got one. Silly boy was going to pay. I checked it out. There were about 6 mistakes (like if it had been issued by a traffic warden it would not make it to court). Wrote back to them. Pointed out the mistakes. Got a letter saying "Cancelled".

 

Sometimes doing things different to a template DO work out.

[Bluemondy]

Hi, 1st Time Poster.

 

Like the majority on here, we and our friends were on the receiving end of a PCN from CEL; for 'overstaying' the 2 hour 'free' parking at a retail village (joint shopping trip).

 

The PCN was recieved in the post a week or so after the alledged incident, presumably using ANPR cameras and DVLA database.

 

In each case, the Registered Keeper was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

Being suspicious and reluctant to part with with £75 (or £150 after 14 days), a google search of CEL directed me to this site and thank God it did.

 

Thanks to all the posts and advice on here, we have decided that each of us will take a different approach.

 

Our friends used the first template letter, i.e. registered keeper vs driver and will thereafter ignore all future corresponce.

 

We on the other hand, have decided to respond on a letter for letter basis using the template letters with slight modifications, just to see what transpires (probably nothing).

 

We receieved and responded to, the second letter from CEL saying your appeal has been rejected (appeal? we made no appeal, we stated facts), but that the reduced paynment period would be extended for another seven days. Our second letter thanked them for what appeared to be a standrad format letter and that they had failed to respond to the particular issues raised and also included the Cease and Desist clause. We then recieved a letter for the full £150 during that seven day period - have ignored this one and await the next.

 

By the way the RK is also is also director of a small family business, and we have been advised that any subsequent letters to CEL should be accommpanied by an invoice (for say £20) for time and effort spent responding. Is there any mileage in doing this or would this give CEL more information than they deserve?

 

It sounds a good idea given that increasing levels of 'threat' could be imposed if the invoice remains unpaid, (i.e passed onto our accounts department etc). I presume that we would have to advise CEL that any future correspondence would attract such a charge before applying it?

 

It is our intention to chronical our experiences on this forum for the benfit of others, which shall include relevant complaints to DVLA, Trading Standards, Local MP, Companies House (for I believe the original invoice is non compliant, etc.)

[nick20045]

 

By the way the RK is also is also director of a small family business, and we have been advised that any subsequent letters to CEL should be accommpanied by an invoice (for say £20) for time and effort spent responding. Is there any mileage in doing this or would this give CEL more information than they deserve?

If you do then split it. Something like...........

 

Reading letter: £5 (compensation for time spent)

Writing reply: £15 (to compensate for time wasted reading relevant laws. Writing paper/ink/electricity used by computer/envelope etc)

Postage/Travelling to Post office (petrol)/Return home/Time spent travelling to Post Office, at Post Office and return home £15

 

Invoice total: £35

 

Note: Your company does not qualify for credit and as such, please send a cheque for £35 with your reply (should you decide to write back) to cover above costs. Failure to send reimbursement cheque will mean that no reply will be sent to you as you will be in debt with my company.

Edited September 10, 2009 by nick20045
Typo errors