"PCN" from Civil Enforcement LTD

Hadeon

Another CEL Victim (and all others for that matter)

Please also see my post at #6 on this thread & follow the link.
I can assure you that you have absolutely nothing to worry about & the best strategy is just to ignore the rubbish you will surely receive from CEL & Newlyn.

With all due respect to Landmark, don't waste your time & energies in threatening to sue etc; they're well used to it & will ignore anyway just as you can do 'ignore'; it's total rejection they have a problem with.

Trust me & the many others here & on other forums.

landmark

Hadeon wrote: »

With all due respect to Landmark, don't waste your time & energies in threatening to sue etc; they're well used to it & will ignore anyway just as you can do 'ignore'; it's total rejection they have a problem with.

Trust me & the many others here & on other forums.

Aahh but they are not just threats, they are the precurser to real court action.

Hadeon

landmark wrote: »

NO they wouldn't dare. In fact I am not aware of any PPC who has ever done so; but people like us have sued them in court;)

You can threaten to sue them for harassment quoting the following: -

Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act
“S40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.
1.A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he-
harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he know it has not.
2.A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1) (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.”

---

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Offence of harassment. E+W.
(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence..
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both

---

This should frighten them. They should leave you alone then. If they still contact you after this, you can apply for an injunction as well as sue them.

Actually in a handfull of well documented cases, some PPC's have 'taken it to court' & lost, excepting those cases that have been badly defended or not defended at all.

Insofar as CEL/Newlyn are concerned, to the best of my knowledge, they have never 'done court' in private parking cases, & in my humble opinion, never will.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'people like us have sued them in court'.
I am not aware of any cases where PPC's have been 'sued for harassment', but am more than happy to be corrected on this point.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your statement.

landmark wrote: »

Aahh but they are not just threats, they are the precurser to real court action.

.......only if you really mean it and are prepared to expend time, energy, much frustration & financial resources to 'walk the talk' in actually trying to do something about it; otherwise the threats have no more credence or impact than the empty threats of the PPC's themselves.

For a criminal prosecution to 'get off the ground' you would first need to rouse, convince & interest the the BiB to investigate the matter and the CPS to prosecute it (not much chance of that IMO based on my own personal experience).

Failing that, there is the option to pursue a private criminal prosecution (not an easy route and not recommended) with no guarantee of success. The CPS retain the right to 'take over' any private prosecution anyway, & could discontinue thereby scuppering your plans.

That leaves the civil courts route; your hard earned money to gamble away on a principle that may/may not pay-off, but is it really worth it?

I don't wish to appear negative as I actually wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion in principle, but for most people it's just not viable nor worth the hassle. The PPC's are well aware of this & no it doesn't frighten them, both perp & potential victim end up playing 'call my bluff'.

'Ignore' on the other hand is by far the best strategy, costs absolutely nothing in terms of time & money, & in essence achieves the same result.

juno

Another letter today - this time from "Newlyn PLC". Apparently they now want £178 and are telling me not to ignore my "debt".

Scans to follow later.

juno

Front

Back

Stigy

juno wrote: »

My car recently went on a work related outing and parked in a private car park. It doesn't know the normal rules for parking in this car park because it did not see any signs, but if you are there for work reasons then you tell the place your details and you are not supposed to get a ticket. My car did this. Actually, my car didn't understand the form, and where it asked for "position" my car wrote "under the trees" rather than the more usual position within the company.

Then a week later I received a PCN sent through the post. This letter is a one side of A4 document, saying I need to pay £90 or £45 within 14 days. I've never had a parking ticket before but somehow this doesn't look real. I'll provide a scan in a minute.

I know I can appeal this through my company because my car went for work related reasons - someone else recently had to do this. But would it be better to just ignore it?

That made me laugh, as I've never seen a third person post written whereby the subject was the car itself!

juno

Another letter from Newlyn - dated 11th and giving me 7 days to reply. That's twice this has happened, but the rest of my post gets here on time...

Stigy wrote: »

That made me laugh, as I've never seen a third person post written whereby the subject was the car itself!

I'd read the advice not to identify the driver. So it went by itself, clearly

juno

After hearing nothing since November they phoned me today :eek:

I wasn't in so didn't answer and won't be calling them back.

Oopsadaisy

Oh no...not the dreaded phone call.

Once they get you on the phone they can ....er.......um......er.......do............er.................um..................er............... nothing.