Jump to content



Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3438 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is what the Roadside Lawyer website says. The £25 I was referring too is near the end of the article

 

'We can get a solicitor involved on your behalf who will deal with them for a one-off charge of £25. You will not get another pestering letter, phone call or visit and we will get rid of them on your behalf.'

 

Parked in McDonalds Gatwick for breakfast and received a £120 fine: is this legal?

 

I have been issued a fine for £120 for overstaying in the McDonalds car park at Gatwick. I only called in for breakfast! You mention on your site a solicitor who will deal with the company charging me, Civil Enforcement Ltd. for £25. Can you advise me of contact number and address for them please?

 

The "charge" is alleged under contract law and you have committed no offence. What you have is an "invoice" from a private parking company who allege you have breached their terms and conditions by parking and/or overstaying on one of the sites they manage. It has no status in law.The reality is that they will almost certainly not be able to enforce against you and will not seek to do so. Instead they will use debt collectors who will endlessly threaten imminent litigation, references to credit agencies, personal visits, bailiffs and the sky falling on your head.In fact they can only enforce it in law by bringing litigation in a civil court against the driver and proving a breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions. You have no responsibility to tell them who was driving (even if it was you).We can get a solicitor involved on your behalf who will deal with them for a one-off charge of £25. You will not get another pestering letter, phone call or visit and we will get rid of them on your behalf.We have helped many thousands of people in a similar predicament and have a 100% record of success so far.Come back to me if you want to sign up...

Link to post
Share on other sites

They (Roadside Lawyer) basically says everything that is said on this forum. Without going to court they (CEL)will get nothing, they won't go to court because they haven't got an enforceable case. Dont pay the 'fine' and don't bother paying £25 for someone to write a letter you can do. I agree with Demon. If you want to, just ignore all the letters from the debt collecting agency when it gets to them, nothing will happen if you don't give in to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, we got our PCN yesterday, wifes car,someone else driving, BP connect, Gatwick S. etc,etc. Pay £100 or £50 if within 14 days blah, blah. Googled Civil Enforcement Ltd and come up with your threads, Very interesting and a lot of good work. I intend to use a lot of your letters and get these low life off of our backs. But I must ask this question - there are threads about CEL going back for 2 years and some of them quote certain breaches of acts and laws that these sloths have bent/broken, why have they not been stopped?!! Has any official complaints body been notified!! And is there any action being taken to curb their activities? And, finally, can anyone who lives close enough go to the BP connect and find the guy with the high-vis vest and burn his bloody clipboard?!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

I am also new to this site, and have read a number of stories similar ish to mine, so, like the previous person i'll try to keep it short.

 

I recieved a letter from Civil Enforcement LTD stating that I had gone 16 minutes over the 2 hours allowed at Richmond, North Yorks Co-op carpark, and therefore had to pay £90 or £45 for the pleasure.

 

I had been in the co-op all the time, due to helping my disabled mother with her shopping. Their is also a clothes shop within the same building which we looked in, hence being so long. All the time we were in the shop my mothers disabled badge was clearly visabe on my wind screen.

 

I tried calling civil enforcement ltd to talk to someone to explain the situation. a message on their answer machine said they would return the call within 24 hours. three days later someone called and left me a message basically reading the letter they had sent to me, and saying i could pay over the phone if I wished.

 

I wrote to them, explained about the disabled badge, and that it allows us up to three hours parking and therefore I would not be paying the fine. i included the ref. number and all info from the disabled badge. I also stated that if they wished to further this matter I would seek legal advise. This was about a month ago, and I had recieved no responce until today. They have not even acknowledged my letter, but stated that I now owe them £90 and have 7 days to pay or they will send debt collectors, and I could have trouble in future obtaining credit.

 

Any advice anyone has would be appreciated.

 

 

Cheers! Charlie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi K975

 

You've begged the question, why all this time, has nothing happened,... the law dos'nt change just because some unsuspecting geezer gets a parking ticket.

 

This site is about people power,.. people standing up for their rights, letting them know they are not alone and helping them to over-come the unjustness of life,.. and certainly not being seccumbed by greedy traders seeking to make a quick buck by ignorance.

 

This site hopefully gives to those people caught in these Parking Charge scams, (like your-self) the tools to fight for rights given to all by statute and case law citations.

 

Hope this explaination helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Charlie 23

 

Having read your posting, I understand your delimia. The first thing to understand is that these little leeches are not interested in your pleading, thay are totally deaf to every-thing you say, their only interest is getting your money which-ever-way.

 

You over-stayed in a car-park for 15 minutes and they want to penalize you for that time. The law of contract does not recognise a penalty, only damages, thus, the car park owner can only claim for his estimated losses, If the car park was free, then his losses are nil.

 

Please read the Sticky on tthe forum index,

Private Parking Companies/Charges,..Advice paper,... Everything you need to know.

A little tip, when you reply, be 'icily polite and short' in your diction, make them do the work, you don't have to help them make out a case against you

 

If you wish to write back, I submit this short piece for your perusal,

 

Dear little leeches,

In response to your canned letter dated xxxxx (use the word automated if you prefer) You have refused to address the queries posed in my letter dated xxxx

 

Please be advised that I deny entering into a contract with your client and deny absolutely and liability towards him.

 

Your PNC invoice is a penalty and is not enforceable insofar as you have refused to supply any statute or case law citation to support your claim.

 

Plaese do not contact me again other than to confirm the claim is closed or canceled

 

regards. ect, ect, ect

 

Please remember that you have statute law and case law on your side in the form of the Unfair Terms in Comsumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Administration of Justice Act and Dunlop Pneumatic Co v New Grange & Motor Co (1915) 'you have tools in your tool-bag if you need them. use. The sticky will explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Has ANYONE actually received photographic proof from Gatwick?

 

Also has anyone ver had a visit from a debt collector with relation to CEL?

 

 

ALSO I understand that this type of forum is unlikly to be visited by people when they don't have a problem , but is there anyone here or know of anyone that has actually got these theives off their back by using these "standard letters"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ALSO I understand that this type of forum is unlikly to be visited by people when they don't have a problem , but is there anyone here or know of anyone that has actually got these theives off their back by using these "standard letters"?

 

There are many people on here that have got rid of these sort of companies using these letters but even if there was not they are based on legal fact and will work if used properly.

 

There is one crucial factor in private parking issues that gives virtually every driver a get out clause....

 

For civil penalty charges for parking on the highway the law states the registered owner is responsible for any penalties this law does NOT apply for private land parking compay issues. The private company has to chase the driver not the owner so even if they have photos, the signs are correct or any other thing they throw at you unless they have proof you are the driver any civil action will fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The private company has to chase the driver not the owner so even if they have photos, the signs are correct or any other thing they throw at you unless they have proof you are the driver any civil action will fail.

 

It is however, worth commenting that the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities". A private owner would, unless he can prove otherwise, probably be deemed by the court to be the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aka, Mean & Green, & Pat Davis

 

From the comments posted, a little info from the OFT won't go amiss. Firstly, debtors should understand that if you do not repay your debts, creditors are allowed to keep reminding them from time to time,... However they must not act unfairly or illegally.

 

The text below is taken from the guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading and is intended to give guidance on what debt collection activities may be considered as Harassment, or Unfair and should be avioded by creditors.

 

Many activities undertaken by creditors may appear to be Harassment but they are entitled to take reasonable steps to recover debts owed to them.

 

Creditors are advised by the Office of Fair Trading that the following practices are considered UNFAIR,...

 

1, Use documents that resemble a Court Summons other official papers

 

2, Falsely represent a Court or any other officia

 

3, Claim, Mislead, or Coerse payment of collection costs (unless contract provides for them)

 

4, Use oppressive or intrusive collection proceedures.

 

5, Act in a mannor in public, intended to embarrass

 

6, Fail to act with discresion when attempting to make contact in person or by telephone

 

7, Attempting to make contact at unreasonable times or intervals.

 

8, Making frequent demands for payment which are calculated to cause Alarm, Distress, or Humilation

 

9, Disclose the indebtedness to third parties, especially neighbours, relatives and employers.

 

10, Applying pressure to sell property or raise funds by further borrowing

 

11, Falsely claim that crimnal proceedings can be brought for non-payment

 

12, Falsely imply that they may legally sieze property or take action without going to Court

 

13, Make nuisance visits and phone calls, or use abusive or threatening language in person, by letter or by telephone.

 

14, Leave messages that contact should be made with someone urgently,.. without explaination

 

15, Use insufficiently addressed postcards or other corespondence.

 

16, Falsely claim the Right of Entry.

 

******************

 

Those activities are listed as Unfair by the Credit Services Agency in conjunction with the Office of Fair Trading. Some of this activity looks very familiar from the postings. Hope the info helps

 

My regards to Dave 092. I am indebted to him for the above info.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is however, worth commenting that the burden of proof is "on the balance of probabilities". A private owner would, unless he can prove otherwise, probably be deemed by the court to be the driver.

 

I'm not convinced.

In the first case there it is a rebuttable presumtion that the keeper is the owner, all that the parking companies can find out is the name of the keeper. In the second place private vehicles can be driven by anyone with the owner's consent. It is prudent for the owner to make sure that they are insured but there is no legal obligation on them to do so. There is also no legal obligation to keep any records of who was driving. Thirdly it is likely that there would have been a considerable time-lag between the alleged contravention and any court case, no court is going to expect say a husband and wife to remember who was driving some months ago. Finally, the real issue is costs. These claims would be small track cases where costs are not recoverable and it is just not worth while taking the risk for those who put up a credible fight.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest perky88
It is prudent for the owner to make sure that they are insured but there is no legal obligation on them to do so.

 

The above is slightly incorrect, if an owner allows their vehicle to be driven without insurance they are (technically) committing an offence.

 

Sorry, dont want to be dragged into the debate as havent got the time to read all the notes .. but the last post contained that statement that I needed to comment on !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt viewpost.gif

It is prudent for the owner to make sure that they are insured but there is no legal obligation on them to do so.

The above is slightly incorrect, if an owner allows their vehicle to be driven without insurance they are (technically) committing an offence.

 

Sorry, dont want to be dragged into the debate as havent got the time to read all the notes .. but the last post contained that statement that I needed to comment on !!

 

I'm sorry, technically committing offence? You either commit one or you don't.

 

In any event there is a big difference between not having an obligation to check insurance and allowing it to be driven [knowing] it to be uninsured which I think is what you meant to say.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In any event there is a big difference between not having an obligation to check insurance and allowing it to be driven [knowing] it to be uninsured which I think is what you meant to say.

 

The difference is the offence committed.

 

If you don't check, then the offence is permitting.

If you allow it to be deliberately driven uninsured, the offence is aiding and abetting.

 

And I think Perky meant to say committing a technical offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I received the usual letter of response from CEL. I still have to pay the fine even though I may not have been the driver at the time, they have extended by period of time to pay etc etc. So now for the next letter saying 'take me to court'.

 

At least the first letter was worth a try.

Link to post
Share on other sites
today a friend of mine went to Mc Donalds at Gatwick to check the situation out for me. At the entrance there was a bloke in a high vis jacket just as i thought there would be with a clipboard. My mate asked him what he was doing and he replied " I am TAKING down reg numbers and the time you enter (NO CAMERA.....JUST RELYING ON HIS WATCH!!!!). My mate asked if there were any cameras and he replied that there were cameras everywhere, but the only camera he could see (and he took a photo of it) was a regular cctv type on the top of a pole when you exit. So, it seems that they manually record your entry buy using a watch and MAYBE a camera when you exit. So it seems that their case lies with the acuracy of a bloke's ability to set his watch

 

May I ask if your friend took note of signage around the Gatwick mc Donalds/BP connect area? I am now in receipt of a second letter from CEL which mentions "many clear signs", and the person who parked the car has reliably informed me that he saw no such thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I received the usual letter of response from CEL. I still have to pay the fine even though I may not have been the driver at the time, they have extended by period of time to pay etc etc. So now for the next letter saying 'take me to court'.

 

At least the first letter was worth a try.

 

 

Keep using the letter templates as advised and produced by Sticky! I am at the same stage as you and I won't give in to these con-artists!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend has had a new development in her case with CEL, two months ago they sent a final demand for £120 otherwise they would take her to court. Now today she's received a demand for a debt collection agency on behalf of CEL for £208.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi creativesolution,

Tell your friend to write back to the debt collectors, telling them the debt is disputed,, and insist the case is returned to CEL. The fact that d/c have written to you in this mannor is a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guideance code, Section 2.6(h) phyical/psychological harassment, which states, (quote) ignoring and /or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment, is unfair business practice. (end of quote)

 

Also tell your friend that she is making a complaint to the OFT about this unfair practice, that she is being caused undue worry and stress which is causing concern to her (whoever)

 

If you have any doubts, ring up the OFT (you can get the number off their website) and tell them The operators there are very helpful. The OFT loves to know about unfair business practices, thats what they've been set up for. hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi creativessolution

tell your friend to write back to the d/cs telling them that they are engaged in an unfair business practice and insist the case is returned to CEL. The fact that they are demanding money is a breach of the OFT code on Debt Collection Guideance, Section 2.6h which states, (quote)

 

"ignoring and/or disregarging claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment,...is an unfair business practice. (end of quote)"

 

tell your friend to inform the d/cs that she is making a complaint to the OFT about CEL and that a complaint will be forwarded about them if the persist in demanding money given the case is in dispute.

 

If you have any doubts, ring up the OFT (number is on their website) They are very friendly, They love to know about unfair business practices, that is what they were set up prevent. They may also give you the download address for the Debt Collection Guidance Code, its free, why not use it. hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3438 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...