Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 17th Mar 17, 6:27 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 11Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN Please help!
    • #1
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:27 PM
    Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN Please help! 17th Mar 17 at 6:27 PM
    Further to my other recent thread about VCS I now have to deal with yet another PCN this time from Civil Enforcement Ltd.
    The story goes:
    I joined DW Fitness on Alexandra Retail Centre in Tunstall Stoke-on-Trent at the end of February 2016.
    On the 7th March 2016 I had an induction day, then used the gym, swam in the pool etc.
    I received a PCN from CEL dated 5th April 2016 saying that I was parked from 10:44:31 to14:01:59 requiring payment of the PCN as it was a maximum of 3 hours free parking with no return within an hour.
    Fee within 28 days £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
    I honestly never even saw a 3 hour notice although it is there in Bold letters right alongside the number plate recognition camera on the entrance and on smaller notices on every lamp post all around the car park.
    I like many other members of the gym, so I was told, ignored it. In fact the Gym Personal Trainer said she had at least 6 of these going back years.
    Lucky me! I went away on holiday 22nd Feb 2017 only to return on the 10th March 2017 to find a County Court Business Centre claim for £329.10 issue dated 21st Feb 2017.
    Panic set in as it said I should complete acknowledgement of service form or a defence within 14 days!
    I read up as quickly as I could many different threads for newbies and about VCS and then acknowledged via registering on line via the moneyclaim link.
    I rang the court the very next day and checked if I still had time to defend this and they told me that now I had acknowledged online I had until the 28th March to submit any documentation, appeal or supporting evidence.
    I have spent hours reading hundreds of threads about CEL, the Courts, various defence statements submitted etc and I must admit I am very punch drunk!
    I am sick to my stomach worrying about this after just being to court over my other fine of £203 and having paid another CEL fine for my son of £60 ( His mum said she wanted it paid outright as she couldn't deal with all the hastle)
    Please, please, please can someone help or advice exactly what I need to do or write?
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 6:34 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:34 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:34 PM
    I went away on holiday 22nd Feb 2017 only to return on the 10th March 2017 to find a County Court Business Centre claim for £329.10 issue dated 21st Feb 2017.
    Panic set in as it said I should complete acknowledgement of service form or a defence within 14 days!
    I read up as quickly as I could many different threads for newbies and about VCS and then acknowledged via registering on line via the moneyclaim link.
    Good. Luckily for you, CEL are the easiest PPC to see off with a generic defence. Look how easy this is, no hearing, nothing:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72207294#post72207294



    having paid another CEL fine for my son of £60 ( His mum said she wanted it paid outright as she couldn't deal with all the hastle)
    What, is her Google broken? She thinks 'hassle' is sending one email appeal and winning immediately, first try??! CEL are so easy to beat at appeal!

    Can I have some money too (joking - but stop being pushover victims). CEL would have folded after ONE appeal.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Mar 17, 6:38 PM
    • 14,808 Posts
    • 18,622 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:38 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:38 PM
    edit post #1 and remove any hint of who the driver was, just say THE DRIVER , or THE KEEPER at any point where you need to identify anyone

    post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread details how you defend against these court claims, please read it
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 17th Mar 17, 6:59 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    • #4
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:59 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Mar 17, 6:59 PM
    Wow! Thanks for the link to the template I did find it previously but was concerned about some of its content e.g Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage
    Their sign when read close up does say they use ANPR cameras.
    What is the paragraph about visiting with family etc please?
    The claim document I have is signed by Ashley Cohen not the Leagl Team although the letter before action does state Micheal Schwartz Legal Team.
    Could they have changed it to be more successful perhaps?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 9:13 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 17th Mar 17, 9:13 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Mar 17, 9:13 PM
    No. They stop every time, that's just one example of dozens for over a year!

    To find one about Ashley Cohen, simply search the forum for 'CEL defence Cohen'. It is that simple.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 18th Mar 17, 9:42 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 17, 9:42 PM
    • #6
    • 18th Mar 17, 9:42 PM
    Hi Coupon-Mad, I have read various threads for two days now and think I should use the following template but have further questions which I have highlighted in orange. Your help as always will be much appreciated.

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
    Defence Statement

    I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

    The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information. I have not yet requested anything? I did receive a Letter Before Action with a draft particulars of claim. Interestingly it stated an outstanding debt of £140 (£329.10 on the County Court papers)
    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible XXX for outstanding debt and damages. I have never received a NTK just an initial PCN then a reminder then ZZPS who doubled up to £200 then Wright Hassel transfer going to £236 with a formal Letter Before Action. Lastly CEL Particulars of Claim quoting Vine v Waltham Forest London

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner. I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue. Can this really be stated if I have no idea about them having a contract?

    8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XXX My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.

    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim I have not corresponded with them at all!

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 17, 10:32 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 17, 10:32 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Mar 17, 10:32 PM
    Remove this then:
    despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
    I have never received a NTK just an initial PCN
    Well if it was postal, that was the NTK (same thing - the first posted letter is the NTK).

    I have no idea if CEL hold a legitimate contract or not.
    Doesn't matter; it is the Claimant's case to prove. Their burden, not yours.


    But get rid of this if they haven't been kicked off the site yet:
    and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    They always say this, so it makes no difference to your defence:
    Mine states Claimant claims the amounts owed, plus court and legal fees, and interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at such rate, and for such period, as the court thinks fit.

    As for this, you need to understand they have no case against a registered keeper so you were perfectly at liberty to ignore what appeared to be scam or junk mail and was none of your concern:
    My claim says that The Claimant (directly/through its agents) was left with no alternative but to escalate the matter as a result of their non-payment of the debt, which further increased the amount owed, in accordance with the terms of parking.

    Remove this:
    (b) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated *** requesting further information and details of the claim.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 19th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Mar 17, 3:41 PM
    Thanks again Coupon-mad I have amended my defence to the following:

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number ****
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v ******
    Defence Statement

    I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.

    The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £254.10 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.

    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims.


    8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XXX

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed
    Date



    If you agree this is suitable should I now fill in the detail, print and post it to the CCBC Northampton copy to CEL? I could not find an email address on the paperwork for the CCBC.

    I have spoken to the Gym about this but they just say it is nothing to do with them, they suffer the same penalties. I have not written to the headoffice about this. Should I perhaps email a copy the defence with a covering letter to them

    There are dozens of members, I'm told, who have had similar threats but I'm the only "lucky guy!" to have court papers. Some members I do know have just paid up the £60 as they say they can't deal with the letters, threats, research and hassle.
    I really am very thankful for all the time you and other key forum members put into this.
    Much as I wake up dreading dealing with this at all I will persevere, I just hope I can win this one at least.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 19th Mar 17, 3:51 PM
    • 39,770 Posts
    • 79,608 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #9
    • 19th Mar 17, 3:51 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Mar 17, 3:51 PM
    When you win, or it is discontinued (same thing) go back to the gym and tell them and every member you know that it was all a scam and nobody should be paying anything. Also tell everyone that they are not penalties. The gym should be ashamed of themselves, if for no other reason than not telling members that scammers operate in their car park.

    Also cancel your gym membership and find somewhere that actually wants your custom. Leave negative feedback on social media warning that scammers operate in the car park and the gym don't care.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 19-03-2017 at 3:54 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 19th Mar 17, 5:02 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Thanks Fruitcake. Just hope I can win this one.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Mar 17, 5:09 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove this, not needed in a defence as your headings have the claim number and your name as Defendant:
    I am ******* the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle *****. I currently reside at ***.
    And presumably you are reading other people's CEL defence versions in progress at the moment and not just staying on this thread? If so, you will have seen Lamilad's relevant suggestions on smiledotcom's very similar CEL defence thread last night.


    If you agree this is suitable should I now fill in the detail, print and post it to the CCBC Northampton copy to CEL?
    No, bargepole's advice in the NEWBIES thread post #2, about what happens when and how to deal with the paperwork, tells you who to serve it to. The defence does not get sent to CEL by you, only to the CCBC by post or email.

    I could not find an email address on the paperwork for the CCBC.
    No but you can find it when you Google 'CCBC email contact'. Email a signed & dated version scanned in and saved as a PDF.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 19th Mar 17, 11:08 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Thanks again Coupon-Mad
    Filling in my defence the first section states:
    The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.
    My CCBC claim form is signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)
    Should I change the first part to say:
    The Claim Form issued on the **** by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Mar 17, 11:24 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes. Is it really signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 19th Mar 17, 11:35 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Also in the CEL Particulars of Claim they say in section 5
    When the Defendant parked their vehicle (on the date and time as set out in the attached schedule of Information) in the Car Park they accepted, by their conduct, the terms and conditions of parking. See Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2000] 4 All ER 169
    Their are no specific terms and conditions on their car park signage just the bold lettering 3 hour parking no return within 1 hour then underneath in the small lettering "If you exceed the free parking allowance, or if you park in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge, you agree to pay £100"
    They even say:
    To settle this charge at a further reduced rate call 0115 822 5020 before leaving this site.
    Do I take it hese statements can be regarded as T&C's?
    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 19th Mar 17, 11:37 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Sorry Coupon-Mad maybe I'm being naive?
    It is printed with
    signed Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant's Legal Representative)?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Mar 17, 12:16 AM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No you are right, that's not a legal person.

    And yes, what is on the signs are the t&cs. But it won't matter, if CEL discontinue the claim as they have done with every single one seen and assisted on here in over a year.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 20th Mar 17, 7:31 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Hi Coupon-Mad Sent off my defence registered post based on bargepole's advice.
    I have spoken to the Gym Manager again today and she has given me the email address of the landowner.
    Then she said people who have emailed him have had their penalties dropped. Great eh! Why didn't they tell me that months ago??
    I wondered if you could please offer any advice on what I should put in the email to the landowner or if you have a link I can follow to a suggested template email?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Mar 17, 11:12 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You could look in the thread 'Successful Complaints about PPCs' linked among the first words in the NEWBIES thread post #1.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BarryStanyer
    • By BarryStanyer 22nd Mar 17, 12:44 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BarryStanyer
    Hi Coupon-Mad I emailed the following to the land management company I hope it may help others:

    Dear Sir,

    I believe that you are the Landowner for the above Retail Centre where I joined DW Fitness.
    I am a disabled pensioner but intend to try and remain as fit as possible so joined this Gym on recommendation because it features a 25 metre pool.

    On the 7th March 2016 I had my induction to establish what Gym equipment would be beneficial taking into account my spinal disability.
    I then completed a circuit of the recommended exercise before swimming in the pool and enjoying the company of others for a chat in the Jacuzi. I showered then left the Gym to shop in the Home Bargains and Iceland stores.
    The convenience of these stores in such close proximity to the DW facility is excellent and I commend you on a much valued Retail Centre.

    Unfortunately, on the 5th April 2016 I received a Parking Charge Notice from Civil Enforcement Limited for the period 10:44:31 to 14:01:59
    Being disabled my driver parked correctly in a disabled parking bay displaying my blue badge and timer card which by my estimation said 3 hours having allowed time to manouver around the park, find a suitable space and park.
    The fee requested was £100 in 28 days or £60 in 14 days.

    Following this as the keeper of the car I received a series of harrassing and very threatening corresondence.
    A company called ZZPS doubled it to £200 by the 12th July.
    I have now received a County Court Business Claim from Civil Enforcement Limited for a sum of £329.10 threatening the success of another case Parking Eye V Beavis as justification to go to court.
    I have through internet researched and put a defence forward as follows:

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXXX
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited v XXXX
    Defence Statement


    The Claim Form issued on the XXXX by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person
    .

    I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

    1/ This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    2/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
    (a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
    (c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    3/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
    Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £254.10 for outstanding debt and damages.

    4/ Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (b) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (c) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.



    5/ BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (c) there is/was no compliant landowner contract.

    6/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7/ No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims.


    8/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    9/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    10/ The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr Cohen is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim dated XXXX are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:
    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on XXXX

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

    Signed


    Date XXXX




    I have enquired within the Gym and it appears some members have received as many as 6 PCNs and various threats from CEL it just seems that I am the unlucky one for them to be persuing court action.

    It is a shame that such an excellent Retail Centre is being blighted by the actions of CEL.
    If this goes to a court hearing my membership and that of others will of course cease and the adjoining retail outlets will lose the knock on business.

    The local Sentinel newspaper and Stoke Radio have been following the actions of such Parking Companies along with my local MP and Council Leader.

    Do you have a contract with CEL as the landowner to prosecute in this manner?
    Do you support such bully boy tactics as CEL seem to follow?
    Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

    The immediate reply was:

    Thanks for your email regarding the car park at Alexander Retail Park and we have had similar problems but none have gone this far and brought to my attention.


    The problem we have at this site is that when our clients purchased the retail park we inherited this parking enforcement contract that we were unable to terminate. We have now given notice to terminate the arrangement which was the earliest opportunity but they are disputing it.

    The car park rules are the rules and in place for good reason to ensure people visiting the town centre do not just park up and leave the car all day as everyone else charges for parking so some sort of system will always be needed. That said if I had been contacted at the time we would have arranged for termination of your parking ticket as we have the ability to do this remotely via the car park enforcement companies website. We are however unable to terminate your ticket as it is too old and because they have referred to Solicitors is outside our control due to the contract we inherited.

    All that said we really don’t want to cause any ill feeling with customers of the retail park so I am willing to help if possible. The best way forward is probably for you to give me a call later today.

    Many thanks.

    I have spoken to them directly and asked if they would complete the following and forward it to CEL copy me, in an attempt to get CEL to withdraw:

    Re parking charge notice XXXX issued by Civil Enforcement Limited
    I XXXX, do not support our agents, Civil Enforcement Limited pursuing the issue of a parking charge notice issued to XXXX in respect of a vehicle registration XXXX through the court system and wasting valuable court time and public money on an issue that can easily be resolved out of court XXXX is a customer of ours, using the DW Fitness Gym Alexander Retail Park for the duration of the parking event.
    We therefore ask that this unreasonable action by our agents against one of our valued customers is struck out (cancelled) with immediate effect

    Signed Name _____________

    Date___________________


    I hope I have done correctly and acted as efficiently as I can.
    Do you have any further or alternative advice?
    Many Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Mar 17, 1:27 PM
    • 48,407 Posts
    • 61,854 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks like a very good set of action by you, hope the Gym sign that.

    I see he said this:

    We have now given notice to terminate the arrangement which was the earliest opportunity but they are disputing it.
    Unfortunately they are opening a can of worms because when contracts are terminated, CEL retaliate by suing pretty much all their back catalogue of pending PCNs, regardless of staff or customer.

    As the Co-op learned last year, to their detriment, when CEL were suing loads of Co-op staff - it all went very quiet so we assume the Co-op may have paid to settle it and get shot of CEL without publicity. An awful firm to use.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,937Posts Today

8,533Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin