Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[ecalid]

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?

[ecalid]

Good afternoon all,

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

[charitynjw]

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.

[ecalid]

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?

[charitynjw]

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 given—

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.


.

[ecalid]

How about Sec 9(2) (b) & (e) but that is why I asked for copy of the reverse side (which should come with the response to the SAR sent to CEL)

Thanks for this des8 charitynjw

Having read a previous post on another forum regarding the same company, I found the back side of a NtK which was delivered around this time in 2021.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6293713/civil-enforcement-pcn-popla-code-received

I suspect, and I'm certainly hoping that I am wrong, that the paperwork is probably similar if not identical.

It looks like all s9(b) (e) & (f) are covered.

Has there ever been an instance in the past few years where the paperwork hasn't been compliant on either of your arguments?

[charitynjw]

How about Sec 9(2) (b) & (e) but that is why I asked for copy of the reverse side (which should come with the response to the SAR sent to CEL)

From memory, also on the reverse side.
But I always ask to see the received copy, just in case.

[des8]

Hi des8

What do you think might be missing from the NtK?
If PoFA s9(2)(f), that is usually on the reverse side.

How about Sec 9(2) (b) & (e) but that is why I asked for copy of the reverse side (which should come with the response to the SAR sent to CEL)

[ecalid]

Hi des8
What do you think might be missing from the NtK?
If PoFA s9(2)(f), that is usually on the reverse side.

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 given—

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)?

[charitynjw]

Send SAR to CEL then, and you should get a full copy of NTK.
If you are correct the reverse is just instructions on how to pay, then that notice does not comply with POFA 2012 and can be disputed.
Just make sure you do not identify the driver

Hi des8

What do you think might be missing from the NtK?
If PoFA s9(2)(f), that is usually on the reverse side.

[ecalid]

des8 Just out of curiosity, you mentioned that the NTK was non-compliant, could you please elaborate on this for me via PM? This will at least give me some direction to review the correct legislation and give me a heads up on.

[ecalid]

CEL will almost certainly instruct solicitors to initiate a claim.

If your memory about the NTK is correct you will have a number of defences to any claim.

Stop fretting, and wait and see what comes of your SAR, and any claim which materialises
You can't construct your defence until you know what the claim is

Thanks for this.

You are absolutely right. I'll be back if the claim form comes through with the particulars and hopefully I might be able (with the help of you fine guys) to construct an adequate defence.

[charitynjw]

must be going senile in my old age

That makes both of us three.

[des8]

must be going senile in my old age

[charitynjw]

des8

Delete your response to the posted up copy of the SAR as it contains the reg number and will allow CEL to identify this thread as the OP's.
From it they can infer the identity of the driver!