Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[ecalid]

ULA could I get this moved into the court claims catagory please?

[ecalid]

Good morning all.

Looks like they want to dance, so today I received the claim form.

For clarity, the POC are:

Claim for money relating to a Parking Charge for breach of contract terms/conditions(TCs) for parking in private car park (CP) managed by claimant. Drivers may only park pursuant to TCs of use displayed in CP and agreed upon entry/parking. ANPR cameras or manual patrols monitor vehicles entering/exiting the CP and TC breaches. Charges of GBP170.00 claimed.
Violation date: 23/04/2023
Payment due date: 22/05/2023
Time In: 10:30 Time out: 10:48
PCN: **********************
Vehicle reg mark: ********* Car Park:-The hollies

Total due- GBP170.00
Pay: www.ce-service.co.uk or 01158225020
The claimant claims the sum of GBP184.27
for unpaid parking charge inc GBP14.27
Interest under S.69 of the CCA 1984
Rate: 8.00% pa from due date to- 10/05/2024
Same rate to Judgement or sooner payment
at daily rate of- GBP0.04
Total debt and interest due- GBP184.27



From what I'm led to believe, using the online service to acknowledge claims is no longer the best option.

[des8]

Yes, you that's the case I referred to. Sorry, my link seems not to work, but you can access the case judgment via MSE
(https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com...20into%20doubt.)

If the signs are confusing, I don't think they necessarily cancel each other out
It may be better to argue that they should be construed in favour of the defendant (contra proferentem)

[ecalid]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

Thanks Des. Well I hope your neighbor knows who they're up against!

I think with the additional costs arguement, you are refering to the excel v wilkinson judgment? And the consumer rights act 2015 abuse of process arguement?

They had the claim struck out virtue of abuse of process by the claimant for unspecified costs.

Sorry but I couldn't see a link.

Ideally yesa judge would identify the signs were certainly not sufficient enough to form a contract, as a secondary arguement I would have liked to argue the structure of the terms possibly indicate that there are two contracts within the signage, and one destroys the other, also changing the sum specified and time for serving correspondence, rendering their correspondence unenforcable.

[des8]

Apologies for a delay in responding, but had my own set of problems with a neighbour.

You can argue the signs were not sufficiently clear to form a contract, and a major problem they have is with unspecified additional costs
You will find this link interesting and hopefully useful!

[ecalid]

Stop fretting about this and just wait for the court form.

When received you should acknowledge receipt but not enter a defence.
You will then know what you have to defend
.
Post up the claim form (redacted) when to hand.

Good evening,

Thanks Des for your support.

I am coming to the end of my law degree, in the final year, so this is also an opportunity for me to brainstorm and test my own knowledge against others experienced in this field such as yourself. This will also be my 4th claim I've defended, with one reaching court, 2 others for various alleged breaches resulting in discontinuation; mainly consumer credit related and one claim issued by myself for employment issues resulting in a NDA.

That isn't me flexing, respectfully, I just don't want anybody to feel like I am ignoring their advice if I respond in an obstensibly pretentious way. As I don't always announce my legal intuition before engaging in conversation.

Do you have any thoughts on my previous post? As it is obvious the claimant will rely on contractual agreement, it might be sensible to attack this whilst it is one avenue we know they will use.

[des8]

Stop fretting about this and just wait for the court form.

When received you should acknowledge receipt but not enter a defence.
You will then know what you have to defend
.
Post up the claim form (redacted) when to hand.

[ecalid]

I've just been reading the terms and conditions of the signage; and it states under 'Terms and conditions' (which is placed half way down the notice)


1. If I interpret this in the literal sense, anything below 'Terms and conditions' in the notice, is what is alleged to have been agreed virtue of the contract.

2. The sign reads "Pay at machine", but the 'terms' also refer to obtaining a parking permit

3. The terms do not identify any correspondence which might be issued in contravention of the terms.

4. The terms seem to continue to the end of the notice.

5. "if you breach any of these terms then you may incurr a £100 fee"

6. Term para.5: "Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not made within 28 days" so if the keeper doesn't pay £1 after 28 days, the keeper will incurr a £100 fee, having breached the term?

7. Surely, this must mean that in the literal sense the contractee is given 28 days to pay the £1 parking fee, which could arguably contradict the other term of "payment within 15 minutes"

8. If that is the case, then issuing a collections letter demanding £100 within 28 days means that they have not complied with s9(2)b, c, d & i POFA?

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (£1 not £100)

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable; (Given 28 days to pay £1 by the terms, but letters indicate that a breach of terms were made; the letter was received 10 days after the alleged breach and not after 28)

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and (£1)

In essence, whilst a driver can ostensibly agree to the £100 fee, it surely doesn't make the letters enforceable, virtue of contra preforentum; where terms are ambiguous, for the party attempting to enforce the terms, the courts may construe the terms against the claimant.

[ecalid]

You have to prepare as if it will end in a hearing,

Agreed, better to be prepared in full and ready to rumble.

but sometimes they discontinue their claim at the last minute

or they simply neglect to turn up to the hearing. Such a flagrant abuse of process, these companies should be disbanded.

Just waiting for my DSAR to come back now.

[des8]

You have to prepare as if it will end in a hearing, but sometimes they discontinue their claim at the last minute

[ecalid]

You should respond to the LBA, if only disputing their claim (without identifying the driver!)

Thanks Des. I will do this.

It sounds to me like this will goto court regardless so I may aswell dispute.

[des8]

You should respond to the LBA, if only disputing their claim (without identifying the driver!)

[ecalid]

Good evening all.

Just a quick update...

Today I recieved a letter before action, they indicate that after 30 days, if there is no response then they will initiate court action.

I certainly will not fill out their stupid expenses form, nor will I pay anything towards this alleged debt. A £1 fee turning into £170+ is absolutely insane.

I have today put in another DSAR to see if there have been any other instances of the car being parked at the alleged car park which has not resulted in a fine. As the terms suggest they might not intend to be legally bound by the terms if I can prove that the car has entered the car park and left without paying in another instance, which did not result in a fine.

Even with a consideration period (which isnt stipulated in any of the terms) the terms seek to overrule any statutory or customary terms for a consideration period by demanding payment "within 15 minutes". This surely could not be interpreted in any other way than payment is due from the first minite.

[ecalid]

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,

[des8]

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