Court Claim Received

bluetoffee1878

Just got this from Deborah at co-op after a 2nd complaint letter was sent to them. Some interesting stuff, confirmation that CEL are gone from co-op car parks 19th December.
So I guess I'm working on a 3rd complaint tomorrow. All comments and opinions gratefully received


Thank you for your response to my colleagues email. Please find the responses to your queries highlighted below:

I would like to respond to some of the points you made in your reply:

I understand that retailers have to control parking on their land and I’m sure from the extensive research I have conducted that the Co-Operative group regret getting involved with Civil Enforcement Ltd. Indeed I understand that the contract to control and enforce parking has been or is about to be terminated, due to the disgraceful way that Civil Enforcement have treated YOUR customers. It does not take much effort to find many of your customers (and probably now ex customers) who have been treated in a disgraceful manner.

As from 19th December 2014 CEL will no longer be managing Co-op car parks

I am aware that there is an appeals process with the private parking industry operators, however when mitigating circumstances are offered, appeals are almost never upheld. Again five minutes research on the internet will prove this. These companies do not uphold appeals, otherwise they make no money.

There were 2 appeal processes available to you, prior to the legal proceedings stage, firstly through CEL itself, and then to POPLA if appropriate.

I would strongly argue against your statement "Unfortunately, we are therefore now at a stage where the Co-operative Group is unable to intervene".
You are the land owners; it is you and you alone who legally have interest in the said land. Civil Enforcement are your agents. If you wanted to tell them to cancel an unenforceable invoice for a parking charge you could.
Indeed I am in possession of evidence that Co-operative group have intervened on numerous occasions in the recent past. This evidence I will be presenting to the court if and when a hearing is scheduled.

Once a matter has reached the legal proceedings stage, CEL do not accept any requests from Co-op to cancel parking charges.

Your comment "The Co-operative Group have authorised Civil Enforcement to control the car park which you visited"

Why then have Civil Enforcement ‘sold’ the alleged debt to Debt Enforcement & Action Ltd. This can be construed as a misuse of the keeper data they requested from DVLA which would be in direct contravention of their KADOE contract. A complaint to DVLA will also be submitted by me.

That is a matter for CEL/DEAL to respond to and you may choose to raise it with them and/or in your defence

Furthermore, it now transpires that the witness statement on the official N1 county court claim form has been signed by a person Mr M Shwarts claiming to be a solicitor but with no mention of the firm of solicitors he works for. It is a criminal offence for somebody to claim to be or act as a solicitor if they are not on roll of solicitors maintained by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The SRA have confirmed that they have no record of Mr Shwarts.

It is noted you have raised this with SRA. It is also a matter you may choose raise with CEL/DEAL and/or in your Defence

I have sent the SRA a copy of the paperwork for their investigation and possible prosecution. I do not know whether the SRA would be summoning a representative of the Co-operative Group as a witness in any prosecution, but I thought you should be made aware of this.

If Co-op are contacted by the SRA, it will response as is appropriate

Also in the details of claim they are claiming for "a breach of contract or a contractual charge or trespass". In other words they do not know what they are claiming for so are ‘hedging their bets’. This is unfair and not proportional to the actual charge. They should know what the charge is for; not make me write three separate defences to try to cover each eventuality.

This is a matter for Civil Enforcement to respond to and you may choose to raise it with them and/or in your defence

This I believe demonstrates the nature of the private parking industry in general and CEL and DEAL in particular. Are these the types of organisations an ethical company like the Co-operative want to be associated with? I think not

As I mentioned in my previous correspondence, at the time of the alleged contravention I was heavily pregnant, so was protected by the Equality Act 2010. Service providers such as yourselves must make provision for this. It is unlawful to discriminate against somebody protected under this act. A point I will be raising in any hearing.

Many customers using a Co-operative car park fall within the various different provisions of the Equality Act, but the management of the car park does not constitutes a contravention of its provisions.

Lastly, as the only legal entity with interest in the land, I will be requesting that the court summon The Co-operative Group to any hearing. This would be the company secretary (which I believe you do not have) or Mr Murrells himself. I would be grateful if you could inform him of such.

We have not had sight of the Claim Form, but assume that either CEL or DEAL are the Claimant. They are bringing the Claim, and accordingly it is for them to substantiate their case, and to answer any proper defences or challenges raised by yourself as Defendant, whether relating to interests in the land, or otherwise. Accordingly, it is neither necessary or appropriate to require an attendance on behalf of the Co-operative Group at any hearing.

I hope that these answer your queries.

Yours sincerely




Deborah Misell-Williams
Executive Customer Careline Team






If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Kind regards,

Deborah

Ryan_Bryan

Ask her if the Co-op will confirm or deny that they consider you have trespassed on their land. A straight yes or no.

Coupon-mad

The Co-op really are in trouble and floundering over this aren't they? We only see a small % on here so imagine all the complaints they must be getting from all the customers being sued. Yet they are primarily a retailer, now daily wasting their time and money and losing customers due to the poisonous PPC they were stupid enough to let in, and who they signed a contract with which allowed CEL to sue the Co-op's customers/members!

Did no retailer learn from ParkingEye v Somerfield?

bluetoffee1878

Quick question for the regulars.
During the 28 day time limit from the service date can an update be made and sent to the court after the initial defence has been sent?
Or is it a one chance and you're done type thing?
I've done a bit more research and thinking plus Gan's fantastic defence on pepipoo and I'd like to add a couple of things if possible.

Coupon-mad

I think add some things, as long as it's within the 28 days.

bluetoffee1878

I've been having a think and a further read of the actual claim details.
Quote "When the defendant parked their vehicle they accepted by their conduct the operators pricing structure. The defendant was allowed to remain in the car park in consideration for agreeing to pay blah blah blah".
Am I being pedantic or is this just a play on words?
If I read this literally then the defendant parks their car but the defendant (not the defendants vehicle) is allowed to remain in the car park.
Or is this just further weight to the amateurish way this claim has been put together.
Also no mention of POFA, and it seems an assumption that the defendant who is the registered keeper was the driver which has never been addmitted or denied.

Coupon-mad

You are not being pedantic and should reiterate that no admissions have been made about who was driving and so their lack of a POFA document means you are not liable in law.

bluetoffee1878

We asked the co-op whether CEL had assigned the debt to DEAL with the knowledge of the co-op.

Deborah has replied:
"I can confirm that Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) did not seek or obtain the consent of the Co-operative Group to an assignment to DEAL"

Oh dear it would appear that Mr Shwarts has signed a statement of truth which has now been confirmed by the landowner as not true

Coupon-mad

That's interesting - well done for getting that from the Co-op. Can you reproduce the actual email reply (maybe a screenshot without your email addy in it) because other people could use that in their defence.

bluetoffee1878

Coupon mad, below is the email redacted.
We were prompted to contact co-op and ask this question by a post on pepipoo by OP desparateD so I'm guessing this will be the case for most if not all of these DEAL / CEL / Co-op claims. We've also asked a few more awkward questions to Deborah which I'll post if and when we get answers.

From: Deborah Misell-Williams <[EMAIL="customer.careline&#64;co-operative.coop"]customer.careline@co-operative.coop[/EMAIL]>
Date: 12 December 2014 02:48:38 pm GMT
To: "xxxxxxxxxxxxx[EMAIL="ms89mt&#64;.com"].com[/EMAIL]" <xxxxxxxxxxxx[EMAIL="ms89mt&#64;.com"].com[/EMAIL]>
Subject: Re: XXXXXX - Car Parking Charge [ ref:_XXXXXXXXX._XXXXXXXXXX:ref ]

Good Afternoon XXXXXXXXXXX,

We look at each case on an individual basis. However, I can confirm that the following statement:

"I can confirm that Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL) did not seek or obtain the consent of the Co-operative Group to an assignment to DEAL"

is also true in your case.

Yours sincerely



Deborah Misell-Williams
Executive Customer Careline Team


ref:_XXXXXXXXX._XXXXXXXXXX:ref