Got a Court Claim from CEL? Don't pay them - and here's why.

bargepole

Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) of Horton Flags, Exchange Street, Liverpool, seem to be issuing County Court claims for past tickets like confetti at the moment. Many of these relate to Co-Op supermarkets (who have terminated their contract and fallen out with them in a big way), but there are other locations as well.

These claims, for ridiculously inflated sums of money, are issued for one purpose only – to scare the ignorant into paying up. Those of us who help prepare court defences have seen dozens of these before, and in almost every case, CEL will drop the claim shortly before it’s due to be heard in court, because they know and we know that any halfway competent District Judge will give their case short shrift.

Their particulars of claim, and statement of case, is a rambling mish-mash in which they vacillate between damages for breach of contract, and a core contractual term. Sometimes they also throw in a reference to trespass, for good measure. Even they don’t seem to know the difference between these various causes of action, but of course these documents are never intended to see the light of day inside a courtroom.

On one rare occasion, they did actually turn up in court, to take on a defendant for whom I’d prepared the defence case. Their claim was dismissed by the District Judge, and the details of the case can be found here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4782982

Even more unusually, and for reasons best known to themselves, they then decided to spend several £000s on a barrister to appeal the decision. I went along with the defendant to this one, and again the more senior Judge came to the same conclusion as his colleague, namely that their charges were penalties, and not recoverable. An account of the hearing is in this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4903216

… and the transcript of the Approved Judgment is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/acpc498g042b0np/CELvMcCafferty_Judgment.doc

So the message is clear: NEVER pay CEL a penny!

bod1467

:T

A very timely reminder, given the spate of new CEL threads recently.

bargepole

Just bumping this back to the top, in the hope that new posters might see it.

bod1467

I wonder whether this thread should be added to the Crabman sticky?

Or if C-m thinks it's relevant to add a link to it from post #5 of the NEWBIES thread?

Coupon-mad

Will do so!

fil_cad

Bumpty bump time for CELs funds to DRY UP!

nicechap

Hope I'm not hijacking the thread and apologies if I'm being a bit dim.

From the link by bargepole, the judge concluded:-

it was clear to him that the £150 was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.

So isn't this a binding finding at a higher court? Is the famous Cambridge case testing something else by its appeal?

Ivor_Pecheque

H'mm.....it would seem that the Co-op seems to be at odds with their own "Values and Principles."

our co-operative values

Self-help – we help people to help themselves

Self-responsibility – we take responsibility for, and answer to our actions

Democracy – we give our members a say in the way we run our businesses

Equality – no matter how much money a member invests in their share account, they still have one vote

Equity – we carry out our business in a way that is fair and unbiased

Solidarity – we share interests and common purposes with our members and other
co-operatives.

our ethical values

Openness – nobody’s perfect, and we won’t hide it when we’re not

Honesty – we are honest about what we do and the way we do it

Social responsibility – we encourage people to take responsibility for their own community, and work together to improve it

Caring for others – we regularly fund charities and local community groups from the profits of our businesses.

our principles are the way we put our values into action

Voluntary and open membership – membership is open to everyone

Democratic member control – all members have an equal voice in making policies and electing representatives

Member economic participation – all profits are controlled democratically by members and for their benefit

Autonomy and independence – co-operatives are always independent, even when they enter into agreements with the Government and other organisations

Education, training and information – co-operatives educate and develop their members as well as their staff

Co-operation amongst co-operatives – co-operatives work together with other co‑operatives to strengthen the co-operative movement as a whole

Concern for community – co-operatives also work to improve and develop the community, both locally and internationally.

Coupon-mad

nicechap wrote: »

Hope I'm not hijacking the thread and apologies if I'm being a bit dim.

From the link by bargepole, the judge concluded:-

it was clear to him that the £150 was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.

So isn't this a binding finding at a higher court? Is the famous Cambridge case testing something else by its appeal?

I don't think an Appeal case at County Court level is binding, just persuasive (bargepole or others please correct me if I am wrong). We also know of other appeal cases such as ObServices v Thurlow which was Mr Thurlow appealing and winning after he had lost the case started by ObServices Parking, originally. Both of those cases are worth citing in small claims defences as a County Court Judge will pay regard to an Appeal decision.

But the 'Court of Appeal' is much higher, look at the pictogram in this link:

A Brief Guide for ICO Staff - Information Commissioner's

You can see where the Beavis case is going is a much higher tier and that one will be binding - on similar cases.