• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Richard Waddell NtK rear.jpg Views:	1 Size:	107.3 KB ID:	1653112
    Originally posted by ecalid View Post
    charitynjw
    Hello Charity,

    I've had a quick look into this; please see below for a slightly abridged version of the paragraph;

    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is givenó

    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;



    Words to the effect of "28 days after non payment may result in CEL taking debt recovery action" are in the footer of the NtK.

    It doesn't mention the rights conferred, but they have mentioned Schedule 4 at the beginning of the paragraph.

    Does this mean it is not compliant? should they be highlighting the specific rules; ie para 6(1)(b)?
    I have attached a copy of the reverse side of a CEL NtK from elsewhere.
    It is fairly typical of CEL postal notices.
    But your 'original' will still be needed.

    Generally speaking, CEL NtK's are pretty bulletproof.

    Imho, however, the site sign can be challenged, as can the add-on £70.


    .
    CAVEAT LECTOR

    This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

    You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
    Cohen, Herb


    There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
    gets his brain a-going.
    Phelps, C. C.


    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
    The last words of John Sedgwick

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
      Click image for larger version Name:	Richard Waddell NtK rear.jpg Views:	1 Size:	107.3 KB ID:	1653112

      I have attached a copy of the reverse side of a CEL NtK from elsewhere.
      It is fairly typical of CEL postal notices.
      But your 'original' will still be needed.

      Generally speaking, CEL NtK's are pretty bulletproof.

      Imho, however, the site sign can be challenged, as can the add-on £70.


      .
      Thanks for this charitynjw

      That does sound reassuring. Hopefully they won't even turn up to court

      Is there any weight to the fact that it was an 18 minute stay and the ostensible contravention of the alleged 'terms' was to the tune of about £1?
      Last edited by ecalid; 17th August 2023, 15:40:PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ecalid View Post

        Thanks for this charitynjw

        That does sound reassuring. Hopefully they won't even turn up to court

        Is there any weight to the fact that it was an 18 minute stay and the ostensible contravention of the alleged 'terms' was to the tune of about £1?
        The BPA Code of Practice states that a minimum 'grace' period of 10 minutes must be allowed to exit.
        It can also be argued that a reasonable 'consideration' period on entry must be allowed to find a parking space, read signage T&Cs etc. (The offer must be communicated to the offeree....plenty of case law to support this.)
        18 minutes is borderline.
        In my experience, any argument re the overrun time (apart from the consideration & grace) will go nowhere unless it was because of an unforeseeable event, or possibly an 'equality' issue. ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) SC put the kibosh on 'genuine pre-estimation of loss' defences.

        CAVEAT LECTOR

        This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

        You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
        Cohen, Herb


        There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
        gets his brain a-going.
        Phelps, C. C.


        "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
        The last words of John Sedgwick

        Comment


        • #34
          Good afternoon all,

          I've had the DSAR back, please find attached.

          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #35
            I think the paperwork seems compliant, obviously I hope I am wrong and I am waiting for somebody else to correct me. They cheekily included into the DSAR an additional letter which has never been delivered. I don't think this has any weight whatsoever but its notable that they will include non-delivered correspondence into DSAR's.

            Additionally, in this non-delivered paperwork, they state that:

            It is the drivers responsibility to pay this PCN. However, in England and Wales, if after 28 days from the Issue Date, this PCN has not been paid or you have not provided us with the name and current address for service of the driver, then under Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we do now have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act having been complied with, to recover from the Registered Keeper at the time the vehicle was parked, sums that remain unpaid.
            Have they not then opened themselves up to scrutiny, as they have delivered the NtK after approx 10 days but in this correspondence it says the rights are conferred after 28 days? According to this correspondence, should I then not have received the NtK after 28 days?. I think this correspondence refers to a ticket affixed to car scenario; but could somebody confirm this for me?

            Had I paid the PCN immediately, would this letter in essence confirm that my payment was invalid?
            Last edited by ecalid; 1st September 2023, 15:52:PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              As suspected their paperwork is compliant, and the fact that they themselves are confused isn't going to be of help to you.

              Your defence is going to have to centre round their poor signage i.e. it is possible to enter the car park without seeing the sign, and to park in such a position that the other signs are not in view

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by des8 View Post
                As suspected their paperwork is compliant, and the fact that they themselves are confused isn't going to be of help to you.

                Your defence is going to have to centre round their poor signage i.e. it is possible to enter the car park without seeing the sign, and to park in such a position that the other signs are not in view
                Thanks for this des8

                I'll await the claim form and come back to you.

                Hopefully, it'll never get that far.


                Many thanks,

                Comment

                View our Terms and Conditions

                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                Working...
                X