Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

[mystery1]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

Yes they work the same. Just make sure you change the names and anything that doesn't apply !

M1

[Kensh]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

Will do and thanks v much again- I'll let you know how things turn out - hopefully Coop Head Office will sort - or Civil Enforcement will withdraw after seeing the defence. Do you think I should wait until the last minute before sending the court my defence - in the hope that Coop will intervene?

[mystery1]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

I'm sure they will.. I would file it about 7 days before the deadline.

M1

[Kensh]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

Sorry me again! Nearly there but as the link refers to Parking Eye and not Civil Enforcement do I still use the text below and then some wording to the effect that Civil Enforcement Ltd work in the same way as Parking Eye thus making the information contained in the defence relevant ?

The British Parking Association (BPA) have ruled the normal maximum charge for breach of contract should be £100. (Appendix C, clause 19). However, they also ruled that the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss – the parking company cannot just charge an arbitrary amount. The Office of fair Trading agreed with this, pointing out that all costs must be directly attributable to the breach, that day to day running costs could not be included and that the charge cannot be used to create a loss where none exists (Appendix D). Taking this into account, the BPA’s independent appeals body POPLA has refused to authorise ParkingEye’s charges and has published a special 17 page report (Appendix E) detailing why ParkingEye’s charges are not valid. POPLA have made over 100 judgements that ParkingEye’s charges are not a true pre-estimate of loss and no known judgements that they are (Appendix F). This number has stopped rising, but only because ParkingEye have stopped contesting POPLA appeals when the motorist raises the issue of charges. ParkingEye have filed a number of conflicting attempts to explain their charges, both to the court and to POPLA. They are currently on their 5^th significantly different version. (Appendix G,H,I,J,K). Their current explanation can be seen as a filibuster attempting to deflect attention from the fact that it is the landowner loss which is significant, not the charges incurred by ParkingEye. It contains a large number of incorrect facts and unsubstantiated statements, together with snippets of text from small claim cases. The number of different explanations establishes that ParkingEye do not have a true calculation for pre-estimate of loss, but are continually trying different versions in an attempt to get one accepted.

ParkingEye's accounts to 31-Aug-2013 (Appendix L) shows profits for 2011/12 were over 30%. Profits for 2012/13 dipped to 7%, presumably reflecting takeover costs as they were purchased by Capita. Capita’s press release (Appendix M) confirms that in 2014 profits are expected to return to more than 30%. Such a large profit margin is inconsistent with a business whose main income is charges intended to negate the loss to the landowner.

ParkingEye’s true pre-estimate of loss can be calculated as follows. The accounts show that the entire cost of running the business is £9,439,343 (2012) and £12,637,764 (2013). Although not all these costs are allowable against parking charges, this can be used as a useful upper limit. The number of keeper requests made to the DVLA (Appendix N) during these periods are 629,181 and 720,090. The maximum cost per ticket issued is therefore total cost/number of tickets, or £15 (2012) and £17 (2013). Not all keeper requests will result in a ticket issued. An allowance of 10% is generous. However this only raises the maximum cost to around £17 and £19. This is a maximum. Many costs to the company will not be allowable heads of loss. For instance, the entire ParkingEye infrastructure is used to provide management information to customers as well as for enforcement purposes, and costs must therefore be apportioned. In addition ParkingEye issues many tickets incorrectly which they are forced to cancel (over 55% on appeal) and these costs cannot be passed on as they do not result from breach of contract. ParkingEye also run pay and display machines to generate profit for landowners, and this is not enforcement-related but a normal cost of doing business.

Appendix O contains the minutes of the British Parking Association where parking charge levels were decided, showing that there was no consideration whatsoever given to pre-estimate of loss, and that at least one factor was to set the charges the same as council penalties. The minutes also show there is no financial basis for the 40% discount but that it is needed to ‘prevent frivolous appeals. Any charge set to deter is a penalty. A charge set to the level of a penalty is a penalty.

[mystery1]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

I'd miss that out.

M1

[Kensh]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

Thought so but thought it best to check with you first

Do I really now still need my initial statements- are they not covered in the sample you gave me ?

1 No admissions are made as to the Claimant’s assertion that ANPR cameras recorded the Defendant’s vehicle as the Defendant has no knowledge of such matters. It is admitted that the Defendant’s vehicle entered the Car Park on 27 May 2013 at approximately 10.30 and left on 27 May 2013 approximately one hour later. During that period the Defendant undertook his shopping at the Co-op and attended to his wife who at that time was disabled and could only walk slowly on crutches. The Defendant and his wife were delayed because of her disability and her having to wait an extremely long period to use a public convenience.

2 The Defendant had not intended to use the Cooperative Car Park without having first purchased goods from the store. The Defendant can provide written proof that goods were purchased in said store.


3 It is denied that as a consequence of the Defendant’s conduct a charge was incurred; in any event the Claimant has not pleaded in the particulars of claim how such charge is alleged to have been incurred.

4 It is admitted that the Defendant has not paid ‘the outstanding charge’ to the Claimant which has not been quantified by the Claimant in the particulars of claim. The Defendant denies that he is indebted to the Claimant for an outstanding charge. Furthermore the initial charge of £45.00 and subsequent charges now totally £215.00 is considered penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

PS can I ask where you are working from as there seems to be more than an hours time difference

[mystery1]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

Bonnie Scotland

M1

[Kensh]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

On my way there now for hols! It turns out that my son's friend is a solicitor and he is going to file my defence whilst I am away. thanks so much for your help- very mucn appreciated

[Kensh]

Re: Taken to court by Civil Enforcement Ltd

On my way there now for hols! It turns out that my son's friend is a solicitor and he is going to file my defence whilst I am away. thanks so much for your help- very mucn appreciated

Hi - I am so sorry for not having been in touch before but the long and short of it is that the Coop Head Office contacted me to say they would pay Civil Enforcement the fine and I later received a letter from Civil Enforcement saying that they had withdrawn their case. So your advice to contact Coop Head Office was spot on - thanks so much and many apologies again for not getting back to you sooner. Ken