Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[TedBovis]

Just had the third letter from Newlyn in the latest mailshot, the court proceeding one just like some of the other posters.

 

I actually look forward to them now and all the nonsense that they put on them, and I also know it's costing them money . As the advice goes just ignore them.

[letshelp]

so its paper threats only

 

Usually in 99.99999% of cases

 

... no one has ever been to court,

 

Actually quite a few have been to Court

 

and no one has been visited by a debt collector?

 

I have not heard of anyone who has actually had a visit from a debt collector. But having said that they are a member of the public with absolutely no powers to do anything than ask you for money. My 2 rottweilers deal with any such callers.

regards

[sy278]

3rd letter from Newlyn - Notice of Court Action

 

Apparently they "now have no choice but to pass my file back to their Client, who will then proceed with any necessary action."

 

 

I assume I should continue to ignore this as all the others?

 

Yes That was the title of mine. The next you'll get will be "Notice Prior To County Court Proceedings" (sorry to spoil it for you! ), giving 2 week to pay.

 

Like the 3rd one, do the same with this one

 

Will keep updated as usual.

 

 

As predicted its here, 2 weeks to pay, may be taken to court, Also says:

 

"This action will allow Bailiffs to remove household effects and cars from your property, and may affect your credit rating."

 

Again letter not sent recorded delivery.

[letshelp]

"This action will allow Bailiffs to remove household effects and cars from your property, and may affect your credit rating."

 

Take it they did not mention that they would first have to take you to court, then win their case, then you would have to not pay the judgement within 28 days, they usually overlook these little points.

 

Again letter not sent recorded delivery.

 

Of course not that would mean even more expense.....

 

regards

[StrawDog]

My threatogram count from Newlyn is 9 over a 5 month period - is this a record? Can anyone beat this?

Nothing further heard now for over a year - I've got withdrawal symptoms.

[nacklington]

Hi everyone !

 

I am so relieved to have found this site with so many other people 'under threat' from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

 

I feel I must contribute as I was as I suspect many others were too, about to send £75 to an unknown company for a parking fine.

 

Hopefully the following information will appear in a search engine for others who have been 'caught' in similar circumstances.

 

My wife drove our kids to The Goldstone Retail Park, Old Shoreham Road, Hove, BN3 7PN. last week and parked in the free car park for a few hours. A couple of days ago we received a Parking Contravention notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd, Liverpool. (£150 reduced to £75 if paid within 14 days) for breaching the limited stay allowance.

 

The retail park contains the following outlets - Burger King, Sports shop (JJB I think) DFS, Toys r Us and Comet.

 

Having over the past few years purchased a plasma t.v for £1,200 from Comet, A £2,000 leather sofa from DFS together with countless toys and sports items I feel we have contributed well towards the retail park.

 

However the parking ticket arrived, and my wife admitted to - on that occasion only using Burger King then visiting a nearby park with the kids for a few hours.

 

We had no idea there were any restrictions in place as the retail park is not near to any other amenities such as High Streets or train stations.

 

When I first started reading this forum, I initially thought I would go with a letter back to CEL saying that although I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, they must take it up with the driver, but having read through a lot of the posts I think the best plan of attack is to ignore them completely.

 

I am not an expert but a few small signs put enough doubt in my mind to search on the internet for similar cases such as .... no parking ticket attached to the car at the time, not enough company information on the demand letter, no recorded delivery, and funnily enough - because to them I think they thought it might add some muscle, but the 'scales of justice' in the top right hand corner of their letter just screamed alarm bells to me !

 

I am always up for a battle and will keep this forum posted with any correspondance from CEL, but reading the previous posts it has given me the confidence to stand firm and not pay up to the unfair threatening letter, and I hope others like me might take comfort too.

 

Looking forward to their next letter ..............

[Lenie10]

Hello,

 

I'm new too and stumbled across this site whilst trying to find out just who the fruit Civil Enforcement Ltd are; having just received a notice from them looking for £150 ( or £75 if I'm a prompt payer!) for parking in a carpark that was previously absolutely free.

 

I've phoned a local council office about it who told me that over 200 people have be in touch with them in the last week alone about these notices and that they are looking into it - but of course they could not tell me what to do.

 

Sadly a lot of the folk are just saying they will pay it - thinking they are getting off lightly with only having to pay £75.

 

There are several sites with message boards about Civil Enforcement and the advice varies between writing to them or just ignore them. I am still reading all that I cand find so haven't made my mind up yet.

 

One thing that gets me is that the DVLA just hands out my and others' contact details like that.

 

And the worst of it is the carpark is somewhere I had parked for over 15 years whilst going to work. I was made redundant 6 weeks ago and only parked there the other week as I was going to the broo for an appointment about Jobseekers!

 

Very glad I found this and the other boards though. Keep up the good work and advice/suggestions/help.

[Al27]

There are several sites with message boards about Civil Enforcement and the advice varies between writing to them or just ignore them. I am still reading all that I cand find so haven't made my mind up yet.

 

What would writing achieve? Bear in mind they WANT you to contact them so they can mark you down as a live victim and prioritise you. It's actually extremely difficult to get money out of people from just writing letters - even more so if the letters get routinely ignored. I think it's a British politeness thing - can you imagine a Frenchman or an Italian responding to a threatening letter from a poxy little company?

[juliusceasor]

One thing that gets me is that the DVLA just hands out my and others' contact details like that.

 

Agreed it's irresponsible and greedy as well as an invasion of privacy in my opinion. However that doesn't mean that you have to now pay the parking ticket, as you have no doubt read the owner and drive can be two separate persons and it is for them to prove you are one and the same not for you.

This would not be true for council or police officials asking the same question.

Therefore avail yourself of your ability not to self incriminate and don't tell them

[letshelp]

Therefore avail yourself of your ability not to self incriminate and don't tell them

Or, cut out the middleman completely and ignore them, then you can't self incriminate or give them anything to go on at all.

regards

[Unstrung Harp]

Woodchopper

 

Last year, we 'offended' in the same car park as yourself. Upon receipt of the threatening Parking Contravention Enforcement Notice from CEL demanding £150 (or £75 if paid within 14 days) I got extremely angry and prepared a letter to send to CEL plus copies for Homebase, the local MP, newspaper, etc. Fortunately before I sent it I googled Civil Enforcement and found this website. I abandoned the letters and followed the advice here and did nothing instead.

 

We received two more 'Final Reminders before Court Action' from Civil Enforcement and then several letters from Newlyn threatening court action in big bold letters. But no summons arrived, no bailiffs, no debt collectors, nothing, nada, zip. They are all huff, puff and bluff. And now the letters have stopped and I have even started to miss their illiterate and goonish attempts at rampant unpoliced thievery. I shall have to seek my entertainment elsewhere.

 

Ignore them. Do nothing. Don't write. Don't phone them. Don't waste a second of your valuable time on them. The letters will stop. Life goes on.

 

Regards

 

Unstrung Harp

[crem]

They are all huff, puff and bluff. And now the letters have stopped and I have even started to miss their illiterate and goonish attempts at rampant unpoliced thievery. I shall have to seek my entertainment elsewhere.

 

 

You could always go and park badly in the car park again.

[Woodchopper]

Just a note to say thank you to Unstrung Harp and all the others whose information and advice are proving most comforting and encouraging.

[traceyh]

i am hoping someone can hel followed the advice i have seen in this with this company and sent a letter saying i was not the driver as been mentioned i have received a letter back saying tough your the registered keeper and they quoted a ruling of Combined Parking Solutions V Stephen James Thomas (2008)

 

offered reduced amount again should i just send another letter repeating myself and tel them to leave me alone

 

Thanks

[lamma]

claptrap from CPS. Ignore CE, you have told them you were not driving. Plus their letter is without doubt breaking the CPUTR Results within legislation - Statute Law Database

[traceyh]

thankyou i will ignore then and see what happens

[letshelp]

i am hoping someone can hel followed the advice i have seen in this with this company and sent a letter saying i was not the driver as been mentioned i have received a letter back saying tough your the registered keeper and they quoted a ruling of Combined Parking Solutions V Stephen James Thomas (2008)

Thanks

This is an often quoted matter put up as a 'stated case' as if it had been heard in the High Court in London. The fact of the matter it was heard in the County Court and has ne bearing on any other case.

Basically it is just bluff to frighten you into paying, just carry on ignoring.

regards

[Woodchopper]

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.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Woodchopper
Typing error that might result in confusion for the reader.

[traceyh]

thankyou i will ignore them then as i really wasnt the driver, my defence all along as been that it was my partner driving ans as he is serving on a submarine cant say that he did park however he dosnt normally park in this place. I asked them for evidence that he did in fact park there and not just enter the site as the case of the ticket was a video of him entering and then leaving 20 mins later, I paid them £10 for pics to prove he left the car and they could not provide it just a pic of the car going in and leaving.

 

Thanks for your help will let you know what happens next

[Al27]

I paid them £10 for pics to prove he left the car and they could not provide it just a pic of the car going in and leaving.

 

You did WHAT?

 

Cancel that cheque if it hasn't already been cashed.

 

You've just paid a tenner for pics which they'd have to produce in court for free anyway - not that it would ever get to court.

[Woodchopper]

It's too late now, but if you had asked the DVLA (via their website) why they gave out your details to CEL, they might have sent you the CCTV images as part of their reply - free of charge. The DVLA have permission - some special dispensation, I believe - to give names and addresses of vehicle keepers to those who have "good reason" to request them, notwithstanding the Data Protection Act. This includes companies like CEL, and the details are given out electronically on request. Perhaps we should all write to our MPs complaining that in such purely civil cases where the charges claimed are punitively high, the DVLA should not be permitted to release the keeper's details. In other words, more stringent tests should be applied to ascertain whether the applicant really has "good reason" to have the information. It does not sound reasonable that when you are welcome to park up to two hours free of charge in a car park adjacent to some major retailers, you can then be harrassed over a period of months for staying literally one second over the limit programmed into the PPC computer, especially if there is no indication as to who the driver is. The automatic numberplate recognition technique really is a cheapskate way of seeking to enforce compliance with parking conditions. A warning letter or sticker on the windscreen for a first breach of the conditions would be a more humane and acceptable way of going about things. We might have less sympathy with a second offence by the same vehicle in the same car park. But it appears that the aim of the PPC is not to deter but to fleece - the solution in search of a problem!

[WebFerret]

Just some feedback to confirm that I have had no further communications from CEL for over a year now, following receipt of their original 'invoice' issued in December 2007 (allegedly parked over time limit in a retail car park - lol).

 

I simply ignored ALL correspondence from them - the demands for immediate payment of ever increasing amounts, to the 'solicitor' and 'debt agency' letters (no doubt all sent from different desks from the same office - lol)

 

So to conclude - the choice to simply ignore, DOES work and is a much simpler, cost effective and less stressful means of dealing with this [problem].

 

Please pass this advice onto as many people you can and help shoppers go about their business worry free helping the retailers and putting these [problematic] out of business.

[nick20045]

How on earth can they claim this? TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL!!!!

 

WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information

 

[lamma]

it is based on turnover. the information regarding this is on the the same website. annual turnover must be £5.6 million or less; the balance sheet total must be £2.8 million or less; the average number of employees must be 50 or fewer. Accounts and accounting reference dates ? GBA3

[nick20045]

it is based on turnover. the information regarding this is on the the same website. annual turnover must be £5.6 million or less; the balance sheet total must be £2.8 million or less; the average number of employees must be 50 or fewer. Accounts and accounting reference dates ? GBA3

Thanks for clearing that.

 

Considering I have £20 in my wallet and £9.23p in my bank account then I guess I am "minute" :D