Help please - civil enforcement

sbulfin

Hi there,

At the end of last year (last week of December) I received a letter warning me of legal action against an unpaid parking fine. This was the first I had heard of it. So I emailed them asking what exactly it was for. They didn't reply to my email, but I have received a letter with them reattaching a parking charge notice from Civil Enforcement for something back dating to 28 September (!) there is no evidence attached to it, just a date and address.

I definitely didn't go to this address in that time, but my boyfriend who uses the car day to day definitely may have but 4 months down the line we have no evidence. i also jumped on the POPLA website, but the 10 digit verification code isn't recognised so not entirely sure what to do next? What are my rights? Can I appeal?

Many thanks in advance.

Stephanie

Coupon-mad

i also jumped on the POPLA website, but the 10 digit verification code

Where was this old POPLA code shown, on the letter from September? There would only be a POPLA code on a rejection letter after appeal so I can't understand how come you have one (or did you try just the PCN number? that's not a POPLA code).

Did this latest letter threaten bailiffs/court and all sorts, set out as a Letter before Claim, like here?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5583631

If this is not a hospital site, you can adapt the letter I suggested in post #12 there, by removing the first couple of paragraphs about NHS stuff and using the rest to show them you KNOW that CEL can't hold a keeper liable.

Do not name the driver but you can start by saying it was not you, then continue robustly to try to get them to drop it at this stage, pre-court. Even if you get a court claim it is defendable...we have helped with lots of CEL defences, none of which then proceeded to any hearing.

sbulfin

Hi there,

Thank you for such a speedy response! I must have got confused with a PCN number, not POPLA...hence why it doesn't work!

The latest letter littler said 'please fin attached a copy of the original Enforcement Notice' but the letter I received in December was a 'letter before action' which apparently is for an outstanding debt of £140.00. When I look at the 'original enforcement notice' the original fine was £60 before 14 days and £100 within 28 days, so not entirely sure how and why it has automatically shot up to £140.

I will send them that letter - thank you for your help.

Many thanks
Stephanie

Coupon-mad

Be careful to remove unsuitable wording from the start, if not NHS. Show us what it looks like first.

Redx

actually , the original "invoice" (not fine) was always £100 and was reduced to £60 for an early bird discount , then debt colelctor fees were added on to make it £140 from £100 , due to non-payment

treat this as the postal notice and appeal with the blue text template from the newbies sticky thread, after redacting it and hosting it on tinypic

sbulfin

Ahh ok, makes sense....this is what i have slightly altered from your original post. Do I need to make any other changes?

Thank you so much for your help....very grateful!

Dear Sirs,

Re PCN ref xxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your recent ‘letter before action’, dated on 28 December 2016 drawing my attention to a previous invoice that wasn’t received, which I consider to be harassment of a non-liable party and as such, take formal note:

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 small claims court, 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,

Redx

remove the personal info (like the reference) - edit the last post please

Coupon-mad

Yes, go for it!

I would merely add to this because after all, you know nothing about the matter:

Although I have received no letters prior to your latest communication, I believe that the sum in your letter was not set out in any contract/signage and is a figure plucked from thin air, bearing no relation to the maximum £100 set as a ceiling by the British Parking Association.

CEL might well still try a claim anyway, and it is defendable if they do; we've seen off loads here. But the idea here is to hit them hard with just what they do not want to read - a keeper who knows they can't be held liable and who knows they (the registered keeper) can sue for compensation if they can show data misuse by a parking firm. These are the things they do not want you to know.

sbulfin

Lovely, thank you both for taking the time out to respond to me