Civil Enforcement Limited

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Hi I am new to this site, so sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. My wife received a Parking Charge Notice about 40 days ago and having seen something on Watchdog years ago we decided to ignore it and not tell CEL who the driver was. We then received the second letter saying we hadn't replied and that we couldn't appeal to POPLA as now out of date. I have now been on line and found that we should really have sent an appeal in early on. We do not know who the driver was, can we contact CEL now and ask them for a the picture of the car leaving to see who this was? Many thanks

They won't do that. If, however you have reason to believe the driver was not the registered keeper then supply their name and addrewss so you can start again from appeal to Cel.

M1

[cypermethrin]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

I received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd today.

The car park in question you get 20 mins free parking - and then after 7pm its free thereafter

I got the free 20 minute ticket timed at 18:41:30 and left at 20:37. (and I still have that ticket as evidence) So by my calculation my 20 mins free would take me to 19:01:30 - and hence no charge as its after 19:00

But today I went to read the notice again and it says free entry after 7:00pm - inferring that I would need to arrive 19:01 to qulaify rather than remaining parked until after that which was how I interpreted it.

Do you think this is sufficient grounds to challenge the PCN as its misleading and not clearly interpretable ?

Many thanks

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Dear sirs,

I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver paid for parking then stayed into your free period. (see attached copy of receipt). Your charge is penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss. Losses during a free period would be a novel legal concept which i'd be happy to test out at both popla and court should you fail to come to your senses.

Should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.

Further, i am under no statutory duty to name the driver and shall not do so.

Yours etc

Come back for a popla appeal should you need it.

M1

[cypermethrin]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Thanks M1, I replied as per your suggestion and today I learnt my appeal to them had been rejected. i now have a POPLA verification code.

What is the best plan should I PM you my letter to them and the one I received rejecting my appeal ?


thanks for your help

Dear sirs,

I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver paid for parking then stayed into your free period. (see attached copy of receipt). Your charge is penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss. Losses during a free period would be a novel legal concept which i'd be happy to test out at both popla and court should you fail to come to your senses.

Should you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.

Further, i am under no statutory duty to name the driver and shall not do so.

Yours etc

Come back for a popla appeal should you need it.

M1

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Losses during a free period would be a novel legal concept which I'd be happy to test out at both popla and court should you fail to come to your senses.

:rofl:

[cypermethrin]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Hi M1

so here is the letter I sent them with your counsel

I, as registered keeper of the above vehicle, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver arrived at the Car Park at 18:41.30 and correctly retrieved a Parking Ticket at 18:43 (see attached photo a.jpg) entitling them to stay free of charge for 20 minutes & then stayed into your free specified 2 hour period. The Car Park has free parking for 2 hours from 19:00 until 21:00 (see attached photo 1.jpg) with your records showing the driver leaving the car park at 20:37.

Your charge is penal and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Losses incurred during a free period would be a novel legal concept which I would be happy to test out at both POPLA and court should you not cancel the charge.


I would also like to add that the signage within the Car Park in question is not clear upon approaching the Pay Point (see attached photograph 2.jpg) and the lighting during the hours of darkness, which was when the driver visited the car park, extremely poor.


Should you reject my appeal please supply a POPLA code.


Further, I am under no statutory duty to name the driver and shall not do so.


I look forward to you kind reply.

Yours sincerely,

-----------------
and attached is their response. they seem to have completely omitted my major conetion that parking after 7pm is free of charge for 2 hours.




How would you advise me proceeding in light that the template appeal letter does not address the point above

thanks



and below is what the ticket machine stipulates

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Hi M1

so here is the letter I sent them with your counsel

I, as registered keeper of the above vehicle, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver arrived at the Car Park at 18:41.30 and correctly retrieved a Parking Ticket at 18:43 (see attached photo a.jpg) entitling them to stay free of charge for 20 minutes & then stayed into your free specified 2 hour period. The Car Park has free parking for 2 hours from 19:00 until 21:00 (see attached photo 1.jpg) with your records showing the driver leaving the car park at 20:37.

Your charge is penal and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Losses incurred during a free period would be a novel legal concept which I would be happy to test out at both POPLA and court should you not cancel the charge.


I would also like to add that the signage within the Car Park in question is not clear upon approaching the Pay Point (see attached photograph 2.jpg) and the lighting during the hours of darkness, which was when the driver visited the car park, extremely poor.


Should you reject my appeal please supply a POPLA code.


Further, I am under no statutory duty to name the driver and shall not do so.


I look forward to you kind reply.

Yours sincerely,

-----------------
and attached is their response. they seem to have completely omitted my major conetion that parking after 7pm is free of charge for 2 hours.




How would you advise me proceeding in light that the template appeal letter does not address the point above

thanks



and below is what the ticket machine stipulates

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.


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 (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” 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.




The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should, “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as Civil Enforcement Ltd rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon, and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.




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,”


There was a parking charge levied and paid which covered the period of parking when the signage dictated that it should be. After this time the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was nearly empty and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Civil Enforcement Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. See VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSON and A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation.


I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


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. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


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.


The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


The signage on site states that parking is limited to 2 hours with no return within 1 hour. There is no option to stay for longer by paying. A clear penalty.




NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER


There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.


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 further contend that Civil Enforcement Ltd have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence. I, as registered keeper, contend that these cameras and their operation do not meet the standards laid down in the BPA code of practice.


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





Please double check.

M1

[jb140673]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Hi All,

New to the forum but have been following the advice.

I have had the PCN for overstaying the free 20 minute period for parking (by 20 minutes). I have appealed to the operator with the standard letter and been rejected. I have appealed to POPLA, again with the very helpful standard letter and received a copy of the operators response which is as follows (I have omitted / summarised some of the sections to save time):

First section is just a summary of the details of the car park / signage / ANPR system

The next section reads:

"Contractual obligation not a pre estimate of loss/damage:
The operator manages car parks authorising driver to park at the site on a contractual basis. The different options are outlined on the signage. The amount sought at Parking Charge Notice level is a term of contract optioned by the appellants conduct. The legal basis of this contract is outlined below:

The scope of the rule against penalties is narrow. As the court of appeal stated in Euro London Appointments Ltd vs Claessens International Ltd (2006) EWCA civ 385 at para16-17, a penalty clause is a "sum which, by the terms of the contract, a promisor agrees to pay to the promise in the event of non-performance by the promisor of one or more of the obligations and which is excess of the damage caused by such non-performance".

The terms of the licence permitted the appellant to park in return for the agreed fee. The fee itself varied depending on whether it was paid immediately on arrival, or whether the licencee (here the appellant) elected to pay at a later stage. The appellant was under no obligation to make immediate payment, and the action was not for damages for breach of such an obligation. Indeed, it could not have been - the grant of the licence did not depend on whether or not the licensee elected to make immediate payment, it was conditional only on acceptance of the terms of the licence which the appellant did by their conduct.

The PCN was for the sum due by the appellant in consideration for the operator making parking facilities available to them. To borrow the words of Lord Roskill (with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed) in Export Credits Guarantee Department vs Universal Oil Products Co and others (1983) 1 WLR 399, 402H:

"The clause was not a penalty clause because it provided for payment of money on the happening of a specified event other than a breach of contractual duty owed by the contemplated payer to the contemplated payee".

Whether the charge is consideration or damages will depend on an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the agreement was made. In this case, the wording of the sign is instructive evidence, and seems to indicate simply that parking was free for a period shorter than 20 minutes and £0.80 for up to an hour or £3.20 for up to 24 hours providing payment is made within 10 minutes of arrival. As the charge is simply the price paid for parking, it is a core term and need not satisfy any requirements for reasonableness.

We further submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the motorist.

The charge sought is a contractual term which is within the recommended British Parking Association guidelines and is compliant with paragraph 19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore we have been given authorisation by the BPA to charge at this level.

Also, concluding that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimation of the loss is an error. Such a limitation arises only in respect of penalty clauses, not in respect of the contractually agreed consideration for performance of an obligation.

If the charge is found to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; please be assured that the charge is based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss calculated by some of the following factors not limited to but including:

• Fee payable to DVLA
• Admin arising after violation
• Stationary, postage, etc.
• Preparation and sending PCN
• Loss from another vehicle parking
• Loss from revenue of attached business / businesses
• Legal and/or professional advice
• Wages of staff

The appellant is stating that our charges are "unlawful".

It is an undisputed fact that the signs clearly state in large bold font the terms and conditions of parking.

The driver accepted, by their actions, the terms and conditions of parking. The car park has sufficient lighting.

Notwithstanding that the driver saw the signs, we would refer you to the court of appeal authority of Vine vs Waltham Forest London Borough Council (2004) 4 All ER 169 and Vine Roch LJ where is states "the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning".

The nature of the relationship between the driver and our company is contractual; provided that the drivers had seen the signs (see above). The car park is private land and consequently drivers require permission before parking on the land. The company granted permission by way of making an offer in the signs displayed in the car parks and the appellant accepted that offer and the terms set out on the signs by their conduct in parking on the land. The consideration for this agreement is the provision of a parking space and the forbearance to sue (for trespass).

They then go on to say that the signs are clear and plain. That it is clear the contract terms relating to charges is a core term and that overstaying the time will lead to a fee. They say it is a contractual term they are seeking to enforce and are not claiming for liquidated damage (which would need to meet the requirement of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss).

They then state:
"We are seeking performance of a specific contractual obligation (to pay the parking charge).

The unfair terms in consumer credit regulations 1999 ("UTCCR") provide that where terms of a contract have not been individually negotiated, as is the case here, there is a requirement that those terms be fair. However, the assessment of fairness of a term does not apply to the 'core terms' of the contract, including the "...adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange" (Regulation 6(2)). UTCCR also require that the contract terms be in plain and intelligible language (Regulation 7).

They then go on to state they cannot provide copies of their contract with the landowner due to data protection but attach a witness statement authorising them to issue PCN. They state they have issued correctly as they are authorised by the landowner, have no record of the appellant paying (we did not, the first 20 minutes are 'free') and "the appellant raises that the grace period for the car park is not stated on the signs, however it is taken into consideration before the issue of a PCN".

They include:

• Copies of the signage (but no map of the car park locating signage).
• Copy of the PCN.
• Our original appeal letter.
• Their response to the appeal.
• A copy of the records from ANPR system.
• The witness statement relating to the contract with the landowner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to say I don't really understand all of what they have said and therefore have no idea whether I should now be worried about this? If anyone could advise I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Hi and welcome to Legal Beagles.

Sounds like PPCs' usual brand of bovine excrement. Hang on in there. One of our members who is an expert in dealing with this sort of thing should be along soon.

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Nope, no need to worry.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...485#post400485

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...680#post400680

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...926#post402926 This one is the result.

M1

[jb140673]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Nope, no need to worry.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...485#post400485

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...680#post400680

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...926#post402926 This one is the result.

M1

Wonderful, If only I had re-read all the posts I could have worked it out by myself. Thanks for your time to respond anyway!!

Hopefully I will get the same result!

[jb140673]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Good news - the appeal is won.

Predictably on not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I dread to think how much money these companies make.

Thanks for all your help!!!

[myeash]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! M1 your are my hero. Today I received an email from POPLA and they have up upheld my appeal to CEL.

Get an appeal in to CEL asap. the 28 day deadline is near. This is the easiest and best way to deal with it. They usually will not allow your appeal but should give a popla appeal and a good one such as this is pretty much guaranteed to win.

Send an appeal to CEL such as




Dear Sirs,




I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver did not see any signs. In any event the charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.




In the event you refuse my appeal please send me a popla code. I am under no statutory obligation to name the driver and will not be doing so.




Yours etc




http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...67&postcount=2 show the winning points at Popla.



To get an email when a post is made to this thread you need to click on thread tools near the top of the page and subscribe to the thread choosing instant email notification.

M1

[stormy]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited Claim Form issued for County Court

I am seeking advice on how to fight a case against Civil Enforcement Ltd. I wish to make a counterclaim against them, but do not know what sum of money would be appropriate in the circumstances. I have to pay a fee which varies according to how much I'm claiming for and have to do this within the next few days.
> I wondered if anyone had done this before against Civil Enforcement Ltd. Can you claim compensation against them for falsely accusing you of something that you haven't done?
> My case goes back to 2012. I parked on the public highway in a parking bay which was limited time, 1 hour, and no return. This is under Sheffield City Council Parking and I did not get a ticket from them when I overstayed. Civil Enforcement Ltd sent me the parking contravention in the post which showed my car, the windows looked blacked out, and it was taken by a hand held camera. They claim the picture was taken in the Co-op car park, which is across the road from where I parked, and was taken by an automatic camera.
> They have caused me extreme distress over the years, have harassed and intimidated me and I believe that they should not be able to do this to people. The Co-op Customer Services have been unhelpful, although they admitted that they had numerous complaints about Civil Enforcement, they stated that they could not get out of the contract that they have with them. Customer Services told me that they would phone me back, but didn't. I then sent an email to Co-op customer services, but they haven't responded to that. I am 56 years old and my parents and myself have always been Co-op members, but I do not want to be associated with a retailer who does not take responsibility for the underhand actions that Civil Enforcement use on their customers. I think my case would be useful to the Co-op, because it is evidence of how they operate and would have thought that the Co-op would be interested but I cannot get in touch with anyone in authority.
Do I need to have a solicitor to claim against Civil Enforcement?
> Any advice or help you can give would be most appreciated.
> Thank you

[wales01man]

Re: Civil Enforcement Limited

Why would they take photo of a car parked on the road and claim it was in a car park?
Why would the co-op help when the car was parked in the street?