Civil Enforcement Ltd (Co-Operative) Court Claim for PCN

The_Deep

The claim is for contractual fees due alternatively as damages for breach of contract arising from the non-payment of the fees, or as damages for trespass

Which? If thery are claiming contractual charges them they must account for v.a.t., otherwise it becomes liquidated damages for breach of contract. If they do not own the land they cannot claim for trespass, and damages are severely limited anyway.

They are chancers, hoping you will be intimidated into paying, and on the rare occasions they show at court they invariably lose. I do not know why such an inept company is so litigious.

Much stuff about them on the Parking Prankster blogs.

bargepole

mumwantsjustice wrote: »

I suppose given my luck my case would be the one CEL turns up for.

In that instances what would I do?

You would make sure that you have a thorough understanding of all the points of your defence, and can argue them coherently in front of a Judge.


Your priorities for the next four months are:
1. Winning this case
2. Everything else - family, friends, work, eating, sleeping, breathing


You will need to spend every spare minute on here and Pepipoo reading other relevant posts, look up cases on Bailii, get a copy of Chitty on Contracts, and become so obsessively focused on the topic that people will cross the street to avoid you, in case you start expounding your knowledge of the Law of Contract.

Ivor_Pecheque

Don't be intimidated by the court process. Natural to be a little stressed, but I found it actually quite a nice day out.

The canteen is reasonable, and they do a belting bacon barm for £1.50

bluetoffee1878

The_Deep wrote: »

The claim is for contractual fees due alternatively as damages for breach of contract arising from the non-payment of the fees, or as damages for trespass

Which? If thery are claiming contractual charges them they must account for v.a.t., otherwise it becomes liquidated damages for breach of contract. If they do not own the land they cannot claim for trespass, and damages are severely limited anyway.

They are chancers, hoping you will be intimidated into paying, and on the rare occasions they show at court they invariably lose. I do not know why such an inept company is so litigious.

Much stuff about them on the Parking Prankster blogs.

Also the signs in co-op car parks before CEL were kicked out stated: "to deter abuse.......blah blah"
So the charge is a deterrent, therefore a penalty and un enforceable.

mumwantsjustice

bargepole wrote: »

You would make sure that you have a thorough understanding of all the points of your defence, and can argue them coherently in front of a Judge.


Your priorities for the next four months are:
1. Winning this case
2. Everything else - family, friends, work, eating, sleeping, breathing


You will need to spend every spare minute on here and Pepipoo reading other relevant posts, look up cases on Bailii, get a copy of Chitty on Contracts, and become so obsessively focused on the topic that people will cross the street to avoid you, in case you start expounding your knowledge of the Law of Contract.

I have been reading alot on here, pepipoo and parking prankster but it's alot to diguest and what points are relevent to my own events and what are not.

Funny you mention obsessively focused because thats what my partner said to me but not in so many words.

bluetoffee1878

This is the normal CEL / Co-op sign inside the car park which states "to deter abuse......"

http://tinypic.com/r/2w1vcwm/8

This is a sign that the co-op placed at the entrance to their stores after many many complaints, proving that customers had not seen the signs in the car park.

http://tinypic.com/r/n2c28p/8

I hope the links work

mumwantsjustice

been back to co-op and the car park in no longer managed by CEL

mumwantsjustice

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

This is the normal CEL / Co-op sign inside the car park which states "to deter abuse......"

http://tinypic.com/r/2w1vcwm/8

This is a sign that the co-op placed at the entrance to their stores after many many complaints, proving that customers had not seen the signs in the car park.

http://tinypic.com/r/n2c28p/8

I hope the links work

Cannot open the first linkl..... it bring me to hair weave:eek:

The second one is fine. Never ever seen a sign like this before.

bluetoffee1878

mumwantsjustice wrote: »

been back to co-op and the car park in no longer managed by CEL

CEL contract with the Co-op was terminated early on 19th December 2014 (I think)

My assumption is because of the huge number of complaints that co-op received regarding CEL's car park 'management'.

Redx

CEL/DEAL are also taking COOP employees to court, with 2 test cases , so its not really surprising that their car parks are no longer managed by CEL

its yet another fiasco that the COOP fell into over the last few years