Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

[Becky1982]

Hi,
I have today received a parking charge notice from Civil Enforcement Ltd saying that I didn't pay for parking in one of their car parks in Frimley,Surrey even though I did!
Can anyone offer me any advise on how to deal with this now as I do want to appeal as I know they are in the wrong!

Many thanks for any information in advance

Becky1982

[Amethyst]

Re: Civil Enforement Ltd - County Claim Form Recieved - Advice Needed Please!!

Hi Becky, How did you pay for the parking ?

[Becky1982]

Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Hi,
I have today received a parking charge notice from the aforementioned company for £100 reduced to £60 if I pay in 14 days! It states I didn't pay for parking, I did of course but like most people I don't hold onto the ticket once used.

I want to appeal but concerned that without proof I don't have a leg to stand on....it all seems very dodgy to me and when I googled it today, it seems that this is a huge problem with these companies put in charge of car parks around the country.

I would be very grateful for any advice

Many thanks

Becky1982

[Becky1982]

Re: Civil Enforement Ltd - County Claim Form Recieved - Advice Needed Please!!

via a machine with cash- I had to punch in my car reg number

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Dear Sirs,


I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver paid for a ticket. In any event your charges are penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.


I am under no statutory obligation to name the driver and will not do so.


If you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.


Yours etc

Send a scan of the ticket if you can.


If they supply a popla code please return and i'll sort out a popla appeal for you.




M1

[Becky1982]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Super thank you- do I send it exactly as you have written it?

Scan of ticket meaning the parking notice?

Many thanks again!

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Super thank you- do I send it exactly as you have written it?

Scan of ticket meaning the parking notice?

Many thanks again!

Pretty much. Receipt as in the parking ticket that was paid for which most people don't keep.

M1

[Becky1982]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Pretty much. Receipt as in the parking ticket that was paid for which most people don't keep.

M1

I didn't keep the ticket! Does this matter?

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

I didn't keep the ticket! Does this matter?

It would have been better but not fatal.

M1

[Becky1982]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

Hi I have received a rejection from Civil Enforcement Ltd with the code xxxxxxx, could you advise me on what to do next please?

Many thanks for your help- much appreciated

Rebecca

[mystery1]

Re: Civil Enforcement Ltd-Parking charge notice

I wish to appeal this parking charge on the following grounds.








1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.




2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.




3. Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.




4. CEL have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.




5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.






1.The charges are penalties.




The charges are represented as a breach of contract. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"




£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was entitled to be in as they had purchased a valid ticket. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense if the driverhad already paid for the right to be there. CEL want to charge a motorist who paid for a ticket. There was no loss and certainly can be no genuine pre estimate of loss. The charge paid more than covered any time on site.


I require CEL to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. CEL cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.




According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''




In Parking Eye v Beavis it was found that the charges were penalties although specific to that car park they were commercially Justifiable which clearly can't be in the case or trespass. DDJ Mahy found in Parking Eye v Cargius that commercial justification such as in Beavis did not apply to a paid car park




2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.




I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. If it is dark it is not good enough for signs just to be present, they must be able to be seen. As per 1 above i contend there were no signs at entry and nothing that said payment must be made within 10 minutes.








3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
CEL do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that CEL has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow CEL to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.




In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.




So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between CEL and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/71a4eb1b5de2...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1




In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'




I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. CEL cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.




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.




4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.




The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.




5. ANPR ACCURACY




This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.




So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the CEL system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.








M1