Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[letshelp]

Handy to keep them in case you need a good laugh every now and then.

regards

[smaragdpete]

Dear RCHiggs

 

Ignore everything they send you, they do not have a leg to stand. I got the "usual" 4-5 letters from Civil Enforcement and Newlyns. Nothing more has happened that was a year ago. Do not worry ..... I hope you managed to stop your payment.

These guys are Con-men of the highest order!

[tomtubby]

Dear RCHiggs

 

Ignore everything they send you, they do not have a leg to stand. I got the "usual" 4-5 letters from Civil Enforcement and Newlyns. Nothing more has happened that was a year ago. Do not worry ..... I hope you managed to stop your payment.

These guys are Con-men of the highest order!

 

 

Yesterday, (February 5th 2011) the Times newspaper had a lengthly article regarding Civil Enforcement Ltd and the role of Newyn Plc in enforcing any so called "debt" The article is EXCELLENT....

 

Unlike a lot a newspapers, where you can read the contents online, The Times have imposed a £1 fee for 24 hour access. Therefore instead of providing a web link I have posted the article instead:

 

 

.A former employee speaks openly of the questionable practices of a company chasing unpaid fines and arrears for local authorities

 

A national debt collection agency that works for many local authorities and high street names has been accused of adding extra costs to debts, cutting corners and aggressively chasing people for money they say they do not owe.

 

The questionable practices of Newlyn Plc are revealed in a damning testimony by a former employee and follow complaints about the company from Times Money readers.

 

A part of Newlyn’s work is chasing unpaid parking fines levied on customers who are alleged to have overstayed their welcome in private car parks. Steve Williams (not his real name), an ex-employee of Newlyn, says that when an unpaid parking debt is passed to Newlyn, it will add an extra sum — often about £80.

 

He says: “It is difficult to justify this substantial extra sum when all it has done is send out an extra demand letter. Often you would require a court hearing and application for a warrant of execution to add extra fees to a debt.”

 

Several Times Money readers report having fees added to disputed debts. Henri Cash, a businessman from West Sussex, ended up facing what he considered a totally unjustified demand for £236.25 from Newlyn for a disputed parking offence in 2009.

 

Mr Cash says he received an initial “penalty” of £75 from a company called Civil Enforcement, which he strongly objected to on the grounds that he was not the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.

 

The fine then increased to £150 before the debt was passed to Newlyn, which then increased the amount claimed to £236.25 — more than three times the initial penalty.

 

Mr Cash says: “I have had two threatening letters from Newlyn. These debt collection agencies attempt to extract money from the public through fear. Had I been the driver I would have paid the penalty — but I wasn’t.

 

“I have asked for evidence that I was the driver at the time of the contravention and they have been unable to supply me with any. After receiving several threatening letters I have now not heard from Newlyn for six or seven months. I think they have grasped that pursuing me for money I do not owe is a waste of time.”

 

Sarah Austin, of Austins, a firm of solicitors, has been shown examples of Newlyn’s letters demanding payment of private parking debts. She says: “The letter should make clear who the original parking contract was between and what the terms were, what the alleged parking contravention was and on whose authority Newlyn is contacting the individual concerned.

“It should also state the basis on which the fees are claimed. But Newlyn’s letter does none of these things. For all the recipient of the letter knows, it might appear that he or she is being targeted by a team of fraudsters.”

 

David Smith, a director of Newlyn, says: “We don’t automatically add money to files, but in the case of Civil Enforcement we add £75 plus VAT to the file as an administration charge with their agreement.”

 

Newlyn also carries out work for local authorities, recovering council tax arrears and parking fines. But here, too, it does not always appear to operate entirely correctly, Mr Williams says.

 

“For a properly conducted levy of goods, Newlyn is supposed to have an accurate description of both the property concerned and the goods being levied, but often there can be very little, if any, detail on the file.”

 

Bailiffs usually visit in vans so that they can carry away goods to auction in settlement of the debt, but sometimes Newlyn’s go out on scooters and the cost of a van has been disputed.

 

Times Money has discovered that, in one case, a Newlyn employee was challenged by a local authority that the company worked for after a debtor had raised a query. The client asked to know who the bailiff was and what items Newlyn had levied on. The employee had no option but to remove the fees as she could not provide answers. She told colleagues that it was hard to explain matters when there were no notes on the file.

 

Mr Smith says: “It is always open to the debtor to respond to correspondence.” He adds: “Newlyn has looked at how we can reduce our carbon footprint and may use scooters for a number of operations carried out by our bailiffs to achieve that aim.

“The charges which may be made by bailiff companies (such as Newlyn) are set by statute up to the stage of the levy. Thereafter our fees and charges are agreed with our clients.”

 

Mr Williams says: “Bailiffs need their vans for most of their work because they can never be sure whether a visit will result in a payment or removal of goods. Many of Newlyn’s letters specify a visit by a bailiff with a van. None specify a bailiff visit on a scooter.”

 

Times Money has also obtained evidence suggesting that, when it came to adding van and levy fees to debtors’ files, Newlyn operated one set of rules for some local authority clients and a different set for others.

 

Mr Williams says: “Some local authorities for which Newlyn worked, such as the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, always wanted confirmation that a visit had been made. So extra care was taken with these authorities.”

 

Times Money has discovered that a Newlyn employee told other staff to ensure that they did not add van or levy fees on to Tower Hamlets or Waltham Forest cases unless there was evidence that these visits had actually taken place. The same applied to the boroughs of Barking, Ealing and Barnet.

 

But this apparent probity was not extended to debtors with other authorities. Times Money has found that one Newlyn staff member was angry when she discovered that van and levy fees had been taken off all debtors’ files where there was no evidence of a visit. She told staff that this was incorrect and that the only clients that this applied to were Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Barking, Ealing and Barnet. She went through and added the fees back in to cases not involving these boroughs.

 

Mr Smith denies that more checks were made on visits to debtors from some local authorities than from others. He adds: “Our correspondence is in full compliance with the guidelines of the British Parking Association.”

 

But the associations guidelines on the process for recovering money due from unpaid parking tickets state: “You must tell them (the registered keepers of cars) how you deal with disputes in case they want to challenge the ticket.” Newlyn’s letters do not contain this information.

 

We would like to hear from other Times readers about their experiences with Newlyn. Contact [email protected] .uk.

 

Case study

 

‘The letters were very intimidating’

Pat Yates and her family have fought a long-running battle with Newlyn over a disputed parking charge, which Mrs Yates received in April last year.

 

She was asked to pay an initial “penalty” of £75 (increased after 14 days to £150) for a “contravention” involving her car at a shopping centre on the Isle of Wight.

 

Despite Mrs Yates’s repeated insistence that she was not the driver at the time, the alleged debt was passed on from Civil Enforcement to Newlyn. In Newlyn’s first letter it increased the sum demanded from £150 to £238.13, with no explanation for the hefty rise.

 

She continued to receive letters from Newlyn demanding payment, even though she had explained that she was not the driver when the “contravention” occurred.

 

Chris Day, Mrs Yates’s son-in-law, says: “The letters were very intimidating and threatened court action. The whole family was concerned that Newlyn’s harrassment of a recently widowed pensioner was having a detrimental effect on her health.”

He adds: “Eventually Newlyn passed the file back to Civil Enforcement, who again threatened to take court action but have not actually done so.

 

“The whole episode has been extremely unpleasant . I don’t think that debt recovery firms should be allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour.”

 

Despite being offered a chance to comment on Mrs Yates’s case, Newlyn has chosen not to comment.

[Conniff]

What a total waste of time not only the post above, but the whole thread.

 

He adds: “Newlyn has looked at how we can reduce our carbon footprint and may use scooters for a number of operations carried out by our bailiffs to achieve that aim.

 

They are trying their hardest to be kind to the world and us people and we are condeming them for being environmentally concerned, it's obvious they only have our wellbeing at heart and the other things are just incidental.

 

.

P.S.

[Alipeeps]

I've just received a letter today from these cowboys claiming my car was parked in a car park in the town where I live for over 3 hours on Saturday evening, 5 February. Thing is... I know for a fact it wasn't!! The time they claim the car was there is from 6:30pm... my daughter goes to bed at 7pm and my husband and I were both at home giving her a bath and putting her to bed! There's no way my car was where they said it was!!

 

In all the cases I've seen discussed on here people are disputing the fairness of the charges or that they were the driver at the time etc etc but in my case they are telling a blatant lie and trying to make me pay a fine for a parking offence that never even happened!

 

So what do I do? Their letter claims they have "photographic evidence of this incident" (which would be a good trick considering I know my car wasn't there!) but they want me to pay them £10 to receive a copy of this "evidence"!

 

I am not paying these criminals a PENNY, not even £10... I shouldn't have to pay to prove the claim is false, it's up to them to prove the offence was committed! And for all I know they may take that £10 payment as acceptance of liability and continue to pursue me for further payment!

 

Do I write to them and inform them that the car was not in the car park, as they claim, and that if they feel they have proof that it was, they should provide me with such proof or feel free to take my to court if they think their case is that strong?!!

[afcwben]

Just ignore them, look at all the advice on this forum, its a speculative invoice which they hope you will pay. They may send you more letters with bigger and redder writing, but save it for your daughter so she can colour it in

[Conniff]

Their letter claims they have "photographic evidence of this incident" (which would be a good trick considering I know my car wasn't there!) but they want me to pay them £10 to receive a copy of this "evidence"!

 

 

You must be aware by now that this won't end up in court. If it should, then they have to send you all the evidence they would be relying on in the court so then they would have to send it free.

This is just an extension to the [problem], don't contact them, and don't pay anything

[Alipeeps]

Interesting udpate... have spoken to my hubby and he has worked out that the postcode of where the offense allegedly took place also covers our local Co-op car park (I'd looked it up on Google Maps and it seemed to point to a location I have never even been to, let alone parked in!!) and he recalls that he did nip to the Co-op late in the evening (the PCN claims the car was parked there from c. 6:30pm to c. 9:45pm and he thinks I might have popped to the Co-op earlier that evening (I really don't recall doing so - am racking my brain to try and remember!!) and it's *possible* that they photographed my car in the car park at c. 6:30pm and then again at c. 9:45pm and assumed it had been there the whole time. It hadn't.

 

Hubby is quite annoyed at being sent this threatening letter and is considering going into the Co-op to tell the manager just what he thinks of the bullying tactics of the company they are employing to enforce their car parking rules. He's also wanting to write to Civil Enforcement Ltd and refute the claim and tell them he's going to charge them for his time and solicitors' fees incurred in refuting this claim! I'm going to try and talk him out of the latter action...

 

It just annoys me to think that these people will continue to send me threatening letters - as I know they will - and demanding payment of a debt that doesn't exist and there's basically naff all I can do to stop them as I know they will never actually take me to court. *sigh*

[Michael Browne]

and it's *possible* that they photographed my car in the car park at c. 6:30pm and then again at c. 9:45pm and assumed it had been there the whole time. It hadn't.

There are dozens of examples of this happening to people - 2 visits, hours apart.

Hubby is quite annoyed at being sent this threatening letter and is considering going into the Co-op to tell the manager just what he thinks of the bullying tactics of the company they are employing to enforce their car parking rules.

Good idea

He's also wanting to write to Civil Enforcement Ltd and refute the claim and tell them he's going to charge them for his time and solicitors' fees incurred in refuting this claim! I'm going to try and talk him out of the latter action...

Bad idea

 

It just annoys me to think that these people will continue to send me threatening letters - as I know they will - and demanding payment of a debt that doesn't exist and there's basically naff all I can do to stop them as I know they will never actually take me to court. *sigh*

But at least you know not to take their toytown threat-o-grams seriously. just ignore and relax

[Conniff]

Hubby is quite annoyed at being sent this threatening letter and is considering going into the Co-op to tell the manager just what he thinks of the bullying tactics of the company

 

If he wants to do that, tell him to wait until he gets further down their chain and recieves the ones with threats of bailiffs coming around to take your goods and the invoice has increased to the hundreds of pounds.

[skenway]

I have received two letters from Civil Enforcement and the third letter from Newlyn. The amounts they have told me I apparently owe have been £75, £150 and £240 respectively.

 

I was legitimately parked in a Homebase car park for over two hours, because I was purchasing some bedroom furniture from a sales guy who was going through some plans and having a great deal of trouble getting the correct discount removed from the final payment amount.

 

I received the first two demands from Civil Enforcement and was told to ignore it by Homebase, as they would contact them and sort the matter out. It seems that the problem has not been resolved, with the debt having now been passed to Newlyn.

 

Could someone please advise me how I stand with Newlyn. Are they people which can be spoken to or what would you suggest is the best course of action?

[SURFBOY]

Ignore

[DBC]

The people to speak to are Homebase. Tell them you are disgusted with this matter and you won't shop with them again until they get rid of the parking company. Don't communicate with the parking company

[skenway]

Thanks. Homebase say they have been repeatedly emailing Creative Parking Solutions and for some reason, the message has not filtered through to whoever is sending me the letters. My concern is that there appears to be now four companies involved, Homebase, Civil Enforcement, Newlyn and Creative Parking. Which can only mean that the communication won't filter through the relevant channels.

I don't mind ignoring the letters if I thought it is all going to fizzle out, but the letters I have received are becoming more intimidating and the money is now set at £240. Obviously I want to stand my ground as I haven't done anything wrong, but do want the letters to stop.

Has there been a case of Newlyn taking anyone to court or bailiffs turning up? Will this cause any problems with my credit rating?

[dpick]

This is the normal rubbish with private parking invoices they know that if they try to take this to court then with a proper defence they would be shot at dawn. They just threaten and bluster the more desperate they get the more threatening the letters become, just ignore and if you ever do get a REAL court claim then you will be the first that has not been a setup.

 

dpick

[DBC]

Has there been a case of Newlyn taking anyone to court or bailiffs turning up? Will this cause any problems with my credit rating?

 

It's not an "or" situation. For bailiffs "to turn up" the case has to go to court, the case is found against the person and then they don't pay whatever the judge orders within 28 days. Perhaps you are thinking of debt collectors who are just private citizens with no special powers, if they do turn up, just tell them to go away or you will call the police.

[Sidewinder]

And the letters won't stop if you engage in a dialogue with them. They will just think they have a live one and the possibility of a payout!

[skenway]

Thanks guys. Yes, I believe Newlyn are debt collectors. Has anyone had any experience of them? I am not planning on communicating with them, just want to know what to expect.

Thanks

[letshelp]

Thanks guys. Yes, I believe Newlyn are debt collectors. Has anyone had any experience of them? I am not planning on communicating with them, just want to know what to expect.

Thanks

They are well known on here and are safe to ignore. Read some other threads regarding them, it will give you confidence.

regards

[tomtubby]

Thanks. Homebase say they have been repeatedly emailing Creative Parking Solutions and for some reason, the message has not filtered through to whoever is sending me the letters. My concern is that there appears to be now four companies involved, Homebase, Civil Enforcement, Newlyn and Creative Parking. Which can only mean that the communication won't filter through the relevant channels.

I don't mind ignoring the letters if I thought it is all going to fizzle out, but the letters I have received are becoming more intimidating and the money is now set at £240. Obviously I want to stand my ground as I haven't done anything wrong, but do want the letters to stop.

Has there been a case of Newlyn taking anyone to court or bailiffs turning up? Will this cause any problems with my credit rating?

 

Just to make you aware that recently, Civil Enforcement CHANGED THEIR NAME...........to Creative Parking Solutions !!!

[pt2537]

"creative" lol perfect name

[crem]

I thought creative parking solutions long since existed?

[Alipeeps]

Surprise, surprise, the next threatogram from these idiots has turned up today, stating "Notice before legal action". *sigh*

 

I'm actually kinda tempted to just write them a short letter stating, as suggested in the sticky at the top of this forum, that I absolutely deny that any amount is due to them from me. I know in all likelihood it would not stop them sending me their threatograms but I just have this urge to tell them that I know they cannot legally pursue me for this! And in the extremely unlikely event that they did ever take me to court, it would stand me in good stead to be able to show that I didn't just ignore them and did reply refuting the debt.

 

However, I know I probably shouldn't and there is the concern that, as stated above, if they get a reply they'll think they have a "live one" and will pursue me all the more. Grrrr.

[Conniff]

If you must write, send him this link with 'remember remember the OPC agenda'

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41438884&postcount=1

[spyderman123]

just recieved a PCN from civil enforcement

i parked on their site in Blackpool at 7:17 to 7:28 in the morning whilst waiting to pick up a friend, i looked up at the sign and noticed the penalty charge then read that the car park was free from10am to 11.30 pm for 2 hours i immediately upon reading this left the car park due the time being 7.17 in the morning, there is no barrier stopping you entering the car park yet they still want payment of £150 or £75 within 14 days.

 

what is my position on this do i have to pay, sorry to be a pain after reading all the other posts but some clarification is required as mine seems to be a little different than staying longer than the permitted time.