Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[TideTurner]

They've got cameras at the entrance and ext of the car park, in clear view, with footage of me entering and then leaving again 2 hours 16 miuntes later!

 

I see your point about not replying if i'm no going to pay - but I think i will reply anyway, just so if it did go any further in future at least I could demostrate that I've fought my corner.

 

What Cameras? Who are they manned by? How accurate are they? Are they Time Synched? Can they provide any evidence (video or other) to prove a contract was in place? Have you seen the footage? They're talking hydraulics, and the onus is upon them to prove their position, not for you to defend yours.

 

Have the cameras been calibrated? By Who? When? What training did the Calibrator have? For how long? Is he qualified?

 

Get them to supply a copy of the footage.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

I purposely visited the car park yesterday to examine the parking signs of any restrictions, which can only be read if you stand right in front of them...

 

Hate to muddy the waters here, but is it not discriminatory to put up a sign which is not visible to EVERYONE. The Highway Code requires that you can read a number plate at 20 metres.

 

'The distance requirement for the old-style number plate is 20.5 metres. The distance requirement for the eyesight test with the new-style number plate is 20 metres. New-style number plates were introduced on 1 September 2001 and are easily identifiable because they start with two letters ie AB51 ABC'.

 

Depending on the font size, many could struggle reading small signs, which is clear discrimination whatever their intentions (to keep it out of sight).

 

Any discrimination or Health and Safety buffs on the site? At the very least they would need to consult one of their solicitors, as this would throw an accusation back at them.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

This is about forming a contract, which means reading the sign fully rather than a quick readout of a number plate.

 

I understand that Battyboomboom, my point is that the requirement (eyesight) to drive is as on my post.

 

For there to be a contract, both parties must agree to the terms. If the font size is too small, the sign (therefore the terms) would be impossible to read by somebody with a visual impairment, although they could still legally drive.

 

I have heard of one of these signs (Council) being 11ft off the ground, and not in a prominent position.

 

Is there no legislation which gives guidelines on the visibility of any such signage?

[TideTurner]

Feralcat2,

 

The terms presented prior to any contract in this instance are specific and cannot be presumed, as with a sale of goods scenario, where offer and acceptance in the majority of cases is clear (a simple sale and purchase). The service here is the provision of a parking space for a set period of time.

 

Where a contract includes implied terms, generally, all parties must understand and agree to those terms.

 

How can you understand the terms if you cannot read them. My reference to a number plate was merely to show that although you may still legally drive, not everybody has good enough eyesight to see the small print on one of these signs, especially when they are deliberately placed where it would be difficult to read them.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Bradis,

 

Anybody who knocks on your door, unless appointed by a Court and without invitation is doing so unlawfully (with respect to menace or harrassment). They have no rights of entry, and you should simply turn them away, and then contact those who instructed them for an explanation.

 

Make a note of their name, company they work for, who instructed them, ID, date, time and everything that was said.

 

That is, IF they ever attend.

 

Keep an eye on your account in case they take out any payment.

 

You have not given your permission for your private or personal information to be communicated by any party, so you should also ask for a copy of the 'letter of instruction' provided to any acting party.

 

The only problem here is with them - how are they going to get money they aren't entitled to out of you?

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

This is not my area, but if it helps and hasn't come up before, take a look at Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

Sorry if this has been raised before. If you are being continuously bombarded with these threats, DO NOT ignore them, keep hold of all correspondence, and make a note of all contact you have with the other side, including dates, times, what was said and any other details you think may be relevant. This will help with the above and they will back off.

However, as I can see from the latest posts on this thread, simplicity is best - they have no business with the registered owner, and it is doubtful that any contract exists with the driver, so keep it simple, state your case clearly 'that they should contact the driver, not the registered keeper'. Well done to the guys who came up with that one!

Hope this helps.

Tide

[TideTurner]

There are several threads with standard letters on them, save re-inventing the wheel.

 

Points to make are: -

 

i) Any claim they have made is wholly disputed

ii) They should contact the driver not yourself as the registered keeper

iii) You consider their actions thus far contravene the Administration of Justice Act and the Protection from Harrassment Act

iv) If they contact you again, you will make a complaint to the OFT and / or the relevant authorities

v) You have grave concerns as to their ability to obtain, store and process your information

vi) Given the above, you do not expect to hear further from them

 

Interestingly, Newlyn are not registered with Companies House.

 

Stand tall

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

They are registered as Newlyn PLC with Companies House but to an address in Rickmansworth and not the registered address in Northampton which appears on their letters. Tut tut Newlyn!

 

So how are the two companies related (old boys club, not yellow pages)?

 

Name & Registered Office:

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD

DBH HOUSE, CARLTON SQUARE

CARLTON

NOTTINGHAM

NG4 3BP

Company No. 05645677

 

There must be a link.

[TideTurner]

Same guys, national business. Wouldn't surprise me if it was franchised. In the North (Yorkshire) there are several businesses with different addresses, but similar tickets and procedures. All different addresses though, and different phone no's, but too many similarities not to be the same firm.

[TideTurner]

Well guys, recieved another letter from CEL today stating 'cessation of correspondence' and that file will be sent to a debt collector. This is the second letter in 5 days, the first was a replica of an earlier letter.

 

They apparently don't much like to know, that their dispite is with the driver and not the Registered Keeper, and that the R.K. has no contractual relations with them or their client. It will be fun to see what the debt collectors say given that I have already told CEL that they will breach the OFT code of practice if they pass-on my details to a third party. I have callanged CEL to take me to court, and nothing has transpired to date.

Passing-on my file to a debt collector is harrassment, and recognised as harassment by the OFT code of practice, given that CEL have not made any effort to substantiate any evidence in support of the charges demanded whilst the alleged debt is disputed. Secondly, given the debt is a penalty, the case for harassment (be it psychological or agressive) can be heard within the Civil Courts. Thus, any of you legal eagles want to hone your skills.

 

Feralcat,

 

I agree with what you say, but to add a bit of value, and as there is no contract in place:-

 

Unless you provide your express permission (or sign a contract and fail to exclude any terms allowing a third party to do so), CEL are acting illegally if they pass your information to any third party.

 

They have a duty to keep your information securely, and must not divulge it unless for legal reasons (and national security, Police etc)

 

If they process personal data they must be registered with the Information Commissioners Office. If not they should be reported, complaint form here

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/data_protection.aspx

 

ICO Helpline: Our helpline is open between the hours of 9.00am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday.

08456 30 60 60

01625 54 57 45

Fax: 01625 524510

 

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

They can only keep the information for a period necessary for the purposes it was provided.

 

As you have not signed a contract, I would question their ability to obtain your information in the first place, and I will be contacting the DVLA in the morning and telling them they must not make my personal information available to anybody except the security services and police:mad: .

 

I would write to CEL and insist they provide confirmation that they have ceased to store or process my personal information in the next 14 days, else, you will report them to the ICO, OFT, DVLA and the Police (harrassment falls under criminal not civil law).

 

Vehicle Record Enquiries,

Vehicle Customer Services,

(Data Protection Queries),

DVLA,

Swansea

SA99 1AJ

 

quote your full name, address and the registration number of your vehicle

 

From experience, the only way to get the ICO or the OFT to listen is by sheer volume of complaints.

 

Good Luck

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Another point here,

 

If you have mistakingly given them your telephone number in the past, or they have obtained it, they cannot discuss your case with you unless you answer a 'security question' such as what is the first line of your address, postcode or DOB etc.

 

You should NEVER provide this info over the phone, therefore, they cannot discuss your case with you.

 

When you write to them, tell them all communication should be in writing.

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

I've just thought, now Newlyn are apparently passing back the file to CEL to action court proceedings. Surely proceedings are now more likely to happen given CEL enlisted the services of Newlyn to chase the "debt" and as a result Newlyn will be charging CEL for their services. Therefore would it be right to think CEL will try to recover this cost?

 

In the majority of cases, DCA's are paid on a commission basis and are paid a percentage of what they recover. Some of the bigger ones will "purchase" the debt at a much reduced rate and then try to recover what they can., although this has become much less fashionable since sites like this popped up and people started fighting back.

 

CEL would do well to cut their losses and concentrate on the frail, easily intimidated little old ladies of this world.

[TideTurner]

Sadly, I suspect that for every one defended there are ten who are bullied into paying this [problem]. More the reason to keep fighting them and spreading the word.

[TideTurner]

But the council scheme is statutory whereas the private parking company must prove a contract with the RK, which is almost impossible in most cases.

 

LA, looking at previous posts, an existing contract needs to be proven with the driver, not the RK. Can you confirm?

 

The matter is further complicated because on CAG there are several known associates of private parking companies who attempt to confuse and deceive at every turn and state that the tickets are enforcable.

 

This thread, and others has shown this to be a clever [problem], unenforceable by the private companies, and as yet, unchallenged by the OFT, despite numerous complaints. All CAG users should exercise a bit of vigilance and expose any non-genuine members (anybody here who throws a spanner in the works).

 

Surely, where you believe there is a [problem] which can affect everybody from the elderly to the unemployed, disabled and innocent, it must be reported to the OFT (Local Trading Standards Officer).

 

Before anybody makes any payment, at least check it out, and get the go-ahead from their local trading Standards that any claim made by these companies is legitimate.

 

What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?

 

Tide

[TideTurner]

Many thanks LA.

 

You have to wonder why Trading Standards have not got on to this, or do we have to involve BBC Watchdog?

[TideTurner]

Quote by SideWinder: I wholeheartedly agree with the advice from Barnsley Boy. This appears to be the latest letter from the threatomatic and is designed with the sole purpose of making you believe that you are about to be hauled into court to be told that all of your worldly possessions will be sold. For all the legal accuracy it contains I am surprised that they didn't go the whole hog and tell you that you would be seeing in the new year in a cell with your new special friend Bubba.

 

Newlyn are basically a firm of bailiffs, and are using threatening behaviour to force payment. As BB says, bailiff action may only follow a successful civil action followed by continued refusal to pay - IF the claimant is able to convince the Court that he is entitled to the money. In the unlikely event that they are daft enough to proceed, then (from Post #203) is your defence and would almost certainly fatally flaw their case.

 

Spot on SW

 

How would any Judge be able to find in favour of a parking company who cannot even decide how long they allow people to park before charging them?

 

Fact - you noticed no sign which invited you to agree to pay a charge.

 

This suggests you were in attendance - I would exclude anything which shows you have any knowledge that you haven't read on this site.

 

Fact - on receiving an invoice in the post you stated this in writing.

 

Unless you read it here (or have knowledge) you should deny all parts and knowledge of their claim.

 

Fact - you wondered how you could have missed this and sought evidence that such a sign and condition exists.

 

Were you there?

 

Fact - the signs on which basis you are expected to agree to a contract are not clear in stating that a charge will apply.

 

Did you hear this on the internet?

 

Fact - the signs state that you have 75 minutes free parking yet by their own documentation they are trying to invoice you for staying only 61 minutes.

 

Having attended afterwards as you were so alarmed with their claims, or did you hear this from others on the internet?

 

I am neither a Judge nor a lawyer, but I could well imagine that based on this they could never prove their case against you. And that is without even having to argue that the charge represents a penalty and is therefore unenforceable

 

The 'charge' falls under contract law, and as no contract exists between the PPC and the driver, or the landowner / driver, any claim is unenforceable.

[TideTurner]

Can we have the link to the 10 Downing St petition set up as a sticky please, it needs more support!!!

K975,

 

You can add this to your signature in BOLD, so every post you make includes the link.

[TideTurner]

I take it that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle and that is how they obtained your address.

How do they know who was driving the vehicle.

Is it the drivers responsibility for alleged offenses not the registered keeper and if you were not driving how can you receive a ticket .

Can you remember if it was you or you partner who drove into the car park and did the same driver drive the vehicle from the car park.

Am I correct in my assumptions and I welcome comments if i`m wrong in my thinking.

At the risk of shouting YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY OFFENCE. at the very best they could claim it is a contractual matter, but proving that is difficult, risky and expensive. In all cases, you should write a letter of complaint to the Head Office of McDonalds etc. and tell them that you find their working practices disgraceful and that you do not expect any further threats from anybody instructed or associated with them. CEL will try and make you believe that you have committed an offence, which is illegal.

 

Tide

[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

[TideTurner]

Can you return and get photographs, particularly of the sign which allowed parking? There must be a claim for distress here.

Edited June 5, 2008 by TideTurner

[TideTurner]

I am shocked at some of the snide comments in this thread, aimed at companies who only wish to help the motorist by providing less crowded car parks.

 

Do you seriously believe these companies wish to help anybody but themselves? It is simply a cash generator. It is not lawful, as they portray, and is "sold" to the likes of KFC and McDonalds as a cheap and effective way of stopping non customers parking on their premises (they will not need to Police their own car parks, simply out source the job).

[TideTurner]

With respect to costs / administration fees, would it not be worth making an application under the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that information obtained by this company is held securely, and not for a period longer than necessary. If you can afford it, send a letter of complaint to the OFT when you send the "contact the RK" letter. These will soon add up and will help spotlight these companies.

[TideTurner]

The head of the Association of Chief Police Officers has just announced live on TV that the ready availability of DVLA data to parking companies and clampers was a "mistake".

Edited June 24, 2008 by TideTurner

[TideTurner]

10 Worst parking tickets

 

Money Central - Times Online - WBLG: The Ten Craziest Parking Tickets of All Time

 

Also this thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/150020-no-more-clamping-towing.html#post1588288

Edited June 29, 2008 by TideTurner