• 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 Limited

Collapse
Loading...
This thread is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

    [QUOTE=mystery1;463790]
    Originally posted by Obb View Post


    Edit http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter to suit. Post a copy up before you send and i'll look although if it contains genuine pre estimate of loss it'll do the trick

    M1
    Hi Mystery 1,

    Thank you for your support and guidance.
    Please see below my adapted form of the template that I am about to sent to Popla. Please make corrections as necessary.

    Kind regards

    Obb




    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I appeal against the decision of Civil Enforcement Ltd because they have failed to follow the BPA code of practice and attempted to impose a penalty charge for either breach of contract or trespass.

    Firstly, we had the verbal authorisation to park where my car was photographed by the garage which was performing the MOT on my son's car. Please see attached MOT Certificate for proof of patronage. ( the MOT certificate showed the time coinciding with time of alleged offence).

    Although we had authorisation as mentioned above, I was not aware of any signage as referred to by Civil Enforcement Limited.


    The operator does not appear to own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, The operator has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

    I require the operator to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.

    Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original, showing the points above, is the only acceptable item as evidence that a contract exists and authorises the Operator the right, under contract, to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.

    I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

    I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

    It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

    The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

    In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


    The Operator also make reference in their appeal refusal of 18/08/2014 to “pay at the original reduced rate by a further 14 days" and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.


    7.1 of the BPA code of practice makes it a requirement that Civil Enforcement Ltd either own the land, or have the written authorisation of the land owner to enable them to operate on the land. I, as registered keeper, put Civil Enforcement Ltd to strict proof that a valid contract exists that enables them to act in this manner on behalf of the landowner. It is not an onerus task to produce the contract as secttion 8.1 of the code means it has to be available at all times.

    19.5 of the code of practice states, “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer,”

    The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking.

    UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

    Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

    The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.


    UNFAIR TERMS

    The charge that was levied is an unfair term, and therefore not binding, pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

    UNREASONABLE

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

    I would contend that this appeal should be allowed for these reasons.

    Comment


    • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

      Firstly, we had the verbal authorisation to park where my car was photographed by the garage which was performing the MOT on my son's car. Please see attached MOT Certificate for proof of patronage. ( the MOT certificate showed the time coinciding with time of alleged offence).

      Although we had authorisation as mentioned above, I was not aware of any signage as referred to by Civil Enforcement Limited.
      Firstly, the driver had verbal authorisation to park, where the car was photographed, from the garage which was performing the MOT on a relations car. Please see attached MOT Certificate for proof of patronage. ( the MOT certificate showed the time coinciding with time of alleged offence).

      Although the driver had authorisation as mentioned above, the driver was not aware of any signage as referred to by Civil Enforcement Limited.


      I'd change that bit but the rest is good enough :okay:

      M1

      Comment


      • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

        Originally posted by mystery1 View Post
        Firstly, the driver had verbal authorisation to park, where the car was photographed, from the garage which was performing the MOT on a relations car. Please see attached MOT Certificate for proof of patronage. ( the MOT certificate showed the time coinciding with time of alleged offence).

        Although the driver had authorisation as mentioned above, the driver was not aware of any signage as referred to by Civil Enforcement Limited.


        I'd change that bit but the rest is good enough :okay:

        M1
        Thank you Mystery1,
        i shall give the update once I receive the reply.

        kind regards

        Obb

        Comment


        • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

          My grandson has just received a parking charge notice from these people, he doesnt remember even being at the car park and says he doesnt know where it is, the time is from 4-39 to 8-20, on August 1st, he doesnt finish work until 4-30 so wouldnt have got to wherever it was in 10 minutse or less by the time he had gone to his car and set off, they say photographic eveidence but show none, i have advised him to look at your website , but i see most of the posts are from last year, the date of letter is 20th August giving him 28 daqy @ Ł45 or later Ł90

          ETA .sorry just up to date posts too
          Last edited by valeriej43; 2nd September 2014, 18:51:PM. Reason: to add

          Comment


          • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

            Just follow the advice given by M1 in post 177 above.
            Amend appeal letter to CEL as appropriate but retain section about unfair penal charge & not GPEoL.
            You'll be fine

            Comment


            • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

              Originally posted by valeriej43 View Post
              My grandson has just received a parking charge notice from these people, he doesnt remember even being at the car park and says he doesnt know where it is, the time is from 4-39 to 8-20, on August 1st, he doesnt finish work until 4-30 so wouldnt have got to wherever it was in 10 minutse or less by the time he had gone to his car and set off, they say photographic eveidence but show none, i have advised him to look at your website , but i see most of the posts are from last year, the date of letter is 20th August giving him 28 daqy @ Ł45 or later Ł90

              ETA .sorry just up to date posts too
              We had similar experience as your grandson with the address stated on the PCN by CEL not recognisable as a place visited by us. After appealing, the photographic evidence was sent which helped to identify the location. I wonder if your grandson can ask for this before appealing?

              Anyway, follow the advice by Mystery1 and adapt to your situation.

              Regards

              Obb

              Comment


              • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                Originally posted by valeriej43 View Post
                My grandson has just received a parking charge notice from these people, he doesnt remember even being at the car park and says he doesnt know where it is, the time is from 4-39 to 8-20, on August 1st, he doesnt finish work until 4-30 so wouldnt have got to wherever it was in 10 minutse or less by the time he had gone to his car and set off, they say photographic eveidence but show none, i have advised him to look at your website , but i see most of the posts are from last year, the date of letter is 20th August giving him 28 daqy @ Ł45 or later Ł90

                ETA .sorry just up to date posts too

                As the others said, a simple appeal then popla as per above :okay:

                M1

                Comment


                • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                  Thank you, will tell him

                  Comment


                  • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                    Hi all,

                    Like many of the previous posts I have received a threatening PCN 'Final Reminder' letter from Civil Enforcement. However this is the first communication I have had from them.
                    The incident date was the 31/07/14, with the PCN issue date being 31/07/14, some 12 days after the incident. This letter was received yesterday (04/09/14).
                    A family member was parked in the same car park at the same time and date, and has also received a similar letter, again without any prior communication.
                    They rang CE yesterday to get details of the incident. As a result we know that both vars were in the car park as alleged.

                    I have not done anything about this yet, and after reading through the previous threads I was going to ignore this and any future correspondence.
                    I just wanted to check that this is the right course of action given the circumstances, or should we both appeal given that neither of us received the notice within 14 days of the incident.

                    Thanks in advance
                    Broadsword

                    Comment


                    • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                      Originally posted by Broadsword View Post
                      Hi all,

                      Like many of the previous posts I have received a threatening PCN 'Final Reminder' letter from Civil Enforcement. However this is the first communication I have had from them.
                      The incident date was the 31/07/14, with the PCN issue date being 31/07/14, some 12 days after the incident. This letter was received yesterday (04/09/14).
                      A family member was parked in the same car park at the same time and date, and has also received a similar letter, again without any prior communication.
                      They rang CE yesterday to get details of the incident. As a result we know that both vars were in the car park as alleged.

                      I have not done anything about this yet, and after reading through the previous threads I was going to ignore this and any future correspondence.
                      I just wanted to check that this is the right course of action given the circumstances, or should we both appeal given that neither of us received the notice within 14 days of the incident.

                      Thanks in advance
                      Broadsword

                      Are you within the time limit given by CEL to appeal ? If so a simple appeal followed by popla as above.

                      If you are outside the appeal time limit, is the registered keeper the driver ? If not supply the driver details and they can appeal and then go via popla.

                      If you are outside the appeal time then either ignore, which might mean you get court papers later which you do not ignore, or appeal straight away as if you do have time to appeal and although they'll reject it could be handy in any court proceedings. Cel are litigious but rarely turn up at court thus making a win quite simple.

                      Also you should badger he land owner or retailers on site in the hope they'll get it cancelled.

                      M1

                      Comment


                      • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                        Thanks for your reply M1.

                        According to their website appeals should be lodged in writing within 28 days of receiving the PCN. I would be unable to comply with that seeing as the letter only arrived yesterday.
                        In both cases the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle.
                        Would I follow the appeals process as listed above? i.e. adapt one of the standard templates, wait for them to reject, then appeal to popla?

                        I will also badger the landowner in the meantime!

                        Regards
                        Broadsword

                        Comment


                        • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                          Originally posted by Broadsword View Post
                          Thanks for your reply M1.

                          According to their website appeals should be lodged in writing within 28 days of receiving the PCN. I would be unable to comply with that seeing as the letter only arrived yesterday.
                          In both cases the registered keeper was the driver of the vehicle.
                          Would I follow the appeals process as listed above? i.e. adapt one of the standard templates, wait for them to reject, then appeal to popla?

                          I will also badger the landowner in the meantime!

                          Regards
                          Broadsword
                          If you appeal something like :-

                          Dear Sirs,

                          I, as registered keper, wish to invoke your appeals process. I was sent a letter which i received on xxxx and although it appears to be a reminder it is the first notification i have had on the matter. The driver saw no signs and in any event your charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

                          Should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.

                          Yours etc


                          If you are lucky and they take your appeal as in time and then reject it use a popla appeal such as http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter edited to suit.

                          If they refuse your appeal stating it's out of time then ignore or pay but do not ignore a letter before action or court papers.

                          This matter is for the most part unregulated so if they refuse to listen to an appeal saying it's out of time there is little else you can do.

                          M1

                          Comment


                          • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                            Thanks M1,

                            I have drafted an appeal letter based on the text above, so will see how long it takes them to reject it.

                            Regards
                            Broadsword

                            Comment


                            • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                              Hi,

                              I have received a Parking Charge Notice from CEL. The date of the supposed offence is 24th August, and the PCN Issue Date is 19the September.

                              As this is more than 14 days after the supposed offence, would i be correct in assuming (from reading previous posts) that I do not need to pay?

                              regards and thanks for any help,

                              ICS

                              Comment


                              • Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

                                Originally posted by ICS View Post
                                Hi,

                                I have received a Parking Charge Notice from CEL. The date of the supposed offence is 24th August, and the PCN Issue Date is 19the September.

                                As this is more than 14 days after the supposed offence, would i be correct in assuming (from reading previous posts) that I do not need to pay?

                                regards and thanks for any help,

                                ICS
                                To chase you as registered keeper yes it needs to be within 14 days.

                                As driver there are no rules.

                                Best to just appeal then go via popla to get rid of it. You may have noticed many recent thread on tickets people had thought over after ignoring themonly for CEL and DEAL to resurrect them as they near statute barred.

                                M1

                                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