CE fines

Coupon-mad

As it is CEL who usually fold at appeal (earlier) stage when people suss that they can't hold a registered keeper liable, I would instead use something more attacking, using words we know they don't like:



Dear Sirs,

Re PCN refs xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your recent letter which I consider to be harassment of a non-liable party and as such, take formal note:

According to Page 1 of the NHS Car Parking management document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481556/HTM0703NovemberUpdated.pdf

• NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.
• NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable.
• Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges e.g. ‘income from parking charge notices only’.

Your contract at this NHS car park breaches this Government guidance as CEL offers this questionable 'service' free of charge to the NHS and you are incentivised to issue as many parking charge notices as you can, to staff and NHS patients, regardless of facts, circumstances and the will of Parliament.

Further, I am aware that CEL do not rely upon the POFA 2012 Schedule4 and your notices prove this. The sum mentioned in your letter appears to have been plucked from thin air and the threats of bailiffs and a warrant of execution, while couched in terms that they 'only' relate to enforcement after a hearing, are misleading in the extreme.

The sum in your letter was not set out in any contract/signage and indeed, the maximum sum that can potentially be recovered from me as registered keeper, would be the sum on any 'Notice to Keeper' and only if CEL fully complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. CEL did not and do not comply.

Now that you are fully aware that I am not accepting any 'invitation to name the driver' CEL has no cause of action and no 'reasonable cause' to process my data at all.

Where the DVLA supplies data to a firm not relying upon the POFA Schedule 4, the operator must only use it for the original basic purpose (pre-POFA) which was simply to enquire as to who was driving. CEL must not imply that the keeper can be held liable, nor that the keeper is under any obligation to name the driver. To do so is a significant breach of the BPA Code of Practice and CEL will be aware that parking operators were and are banned by the DVLA for saying a keeper could be liable when they cannot.

The driver did not agree to any charge and as the keeper, I am not liable for any sum at all. As such, please treat this as a Section 10 notice and remove my data from your records, ensuring that it is no longer stored or processed by you or your agents. Failure to do so will leave CEL and your landowner client jointly and severally liable to pay me compensation for the tort of misuse of my personal data.

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, whilst not binding, concerns a motorist sent a parking charge which was not valid, by an operator which does not use the POFA (like CEL). The judge awarded £250 for a DPA breach. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

Cease and desist with any processing of my data forthwith, except to inform me in one letter that you have cancelled the 'charges' and removed my data from your records. a substantive reply is required within 21 days or you will be reported to the Information Commissioner as a first step.

Yours faithfully,

messi1984

The letter was sent from legal department, letter title in bold "outstanding debt £120"
and signed like this "For an on behalf of civil enforcement limited"

Grimble

Go to PALS at the hospital and ask them to help, if they refuse ask how you make a formal complaint.

messi1984

Great thank you.

pappa_golf

GO to pals in person

Coupon-mad

messi1984 wrote: »

The letter was sent from legal department, letter title in bold "outstanding debt £120"
and signed like this "For an on behalf of civil enforcement limited"

Right - so did you also send them the response I wrote especially for your case? You can't just go to PALS, before you know it you will get a court claim if you do not respond to the letter from CEL urgently.

pappa_golf

messi1984 wrote: »

The letter was sent from legal department, letter title in bold "outstanding debt £120"
and signed like this "For an on behalf of civil enforcement limited"

was this signed by Michael Schwartz ?

messi1984

No Christian Dior

Umkomaas

pappa_golf wrote: »

was this signed by Michael Schwartz ?

messi1984 wrote: »

No Christian Dior

It was a serious question from PG.

messi1984

Letter has been sent with exactly same wording from your letter big thanks again, I feel good about it, it sounds really strong so hopefully they will cancel the charge soon.

P.S. Yesterday I've received the same letter like the one they've sent before.