Thank you for the Welcome

[Obb]

Hi all,

I found this forum today as a result of a "fake PCN that I received from Civil Enforcement Ltd. I did not know anything about this company before today.

Thank you for having this forum. I hope you can guide me in my dealing with this. I received a PCN for £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14days. I did not have my car in the car park stated in the letter, how much more staying for the 36mins stated. I thought it was a fake company until I found this forum.

My concern is that the DVlLA released my details to this rogue company on false pretence. How did they get my car details in the first instance and what recourse do I have against the DVLA and this company.

it is already causing me some stress and I have spent many hours thinking things over with the person in the car with me on that day to find out if we ever got into that car park by mistake. The answer is NO.

Please can can you help?

Kind Regards

Obb

[Obb]

Re: Thank you for the Welcome

I do not know where to post this as the thread has ended.

This is to thank all especially Mystery1 for his help in getting the victory over CEL. I should have sent this mail about 2months ago but I forgot my password and did not try again until today. It was all the time in my mind to write and thank you for your marvellous support.

What I understood to give us the victory was the issue of proof of ownership or contractual agreement with the owner which CEL was not able to provide. This part of the letter is quoted below :

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]"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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]I require the operator to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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." [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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." [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]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."

Once again, I say thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,
Obb[/COLOR]