Civil enforcement ltd parking fine

Fatcarp

Hi there.
I have received my first ever parking ticket after 10 years on the road, well its issued to me as the cars in my name but it wasn't me driving. Anyway.

I've done some research and found I'm still liable as it was issued within the time scale for registered keeper (myself) and has a picture of the car which stayed 14mins in a closed pub car park and was picked up by ANPR.

I initially and probably stupidly ignored the fine and now have received a 2nd letter Saying the fine has raised. I ignored this and now I have received a "letter before action" from civil enforcement saying the fine is now £140 and needs to be payed within 14 days or issue proceedings against me.

I have now exceeded the time for a POPLA appeal but I am wondering what the next thing to do is. Will i get chance to attend court if they do issue proceedings and put my points forward? Or am i fighting a loosing battle.

Advice much appreciated & thanks in advance for reading.
Regards J

Inner_Zone

Fatcarp wrote: »

Hi there.
I have received my first ever parking ticket after 10 years on the road, well its issued to me as the cars in my name but it wasn't me driving. Anyway.

I've done some research and found I'm still liable as it was issued within the time scale for registered keeper (myself) and has a picture of the car which stayed 14mins in a closed pub car park and was picked up by ANPR.

I initially and probably stupidly ignored the fine and now have received a 2nd letter Saying the fine has raised. I ignored this and now I have received a "letter before action" from civil enforcement saying the fine is now £140 and needs to be payed within 14 days or issue proceedings against me.

I have now exceeded the time for a POPLA appeal but I am wondering what the next thing to do is. Will i get chance to attend court if they do issue proceedings and put my points forward? Or am i fighting a loosing battle.

Advice much appreciated & thanks in advance for reading.
Regards J

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73423834&postcount=2

Fatcarp

I've clicked on the link and it doesn't seen to help with my situation other than make out I need to do something asin not ignore it. I don't know what i can do as my option of a POPLA appeal was months ago.

pogofish

Go and read the Sticky properly - each stage is covered fully - Incl post-POPLA!

soolin

I've moved this across to the sub board for more responses .

Fatcarp

Thanks for your advice, I am currently drafting a appeal although it is well out of my 28 days allowed for this, however its worth a shot to save hassle of the possibility of court my appeal reads as follows if you have any advice, im sending it to CEL in the hope i can apply to POPLA with a late appeal as the incident was on the 18/08/2017.

[FONT=&quot]PCN NO: xxxxxxx
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am writing to appeal a fine as the registered keeper of the Toyota Yaris, registration plate xxxxxx. Incident date: 18/08/2017 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Government legislation under schedule 3 of section 13 states: “The consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer” Giving me 12 months to submit my appeal. If you do not accept this appeal it will be evidenced in court as a demonstration of unreasonableness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reasons for the appeal are as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The private land (pub car park) in which the issue has arisen was picked up using ANPR cameras which require the manual input of a car registration by the customer inside the pub upon arrival, however this wasn’t a possibility due to the pub being shut at the time of arrival, therefore the information couldn’t be input into the electronic system (Ipad/tablet) located inside the pub to prevent this issue from occurring.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The opening times of the location in question aren’t visible from the road side, hence entering into the car park for a short period of time which is shown by the ANPR system: Entering at 18/08/2017 09:24:36, Leaving at 18/08/2017 09:39:11 which in summary equates to no more than 14 minutes and 35 seconds where spent in total from entering the car park to exiting. In which time the car was safely parked, the pub entrance was approached and the opening times read, which are only visible from the doorway of the pub. This is where time from entering and exiting the car park is spent. [/FONT]
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg[/IMG][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image003.png[/IMG][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Figure 1a demonstrates the poor visibility of signage and the inability to see opening times from the road side meaning entering the car park is required to gain this information.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous (as can be seen in figure 2a below). There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. However the £100 charge stated in your signage is of an inadequate font size meaning a contract and agreement on the charge was not accepted by the driver, (Refer to figure 2b below).

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:[/FONT]






[IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image007.jpg[/IMG]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image008.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:\Users\james\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image009.png[/IMG][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage including charge' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that the small font size in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print. Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02.06.2016, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore request you cancel my PCN and any further actions from this.[/FONT]

KeithP

Fatcarp wrote: »

Government legislation under schedule 3 of section 13 states: “The consumer has not submitted the complaint to the body within the time period specified by the body, provided that such time period is not less than 12 months from the date upon which the trader has given notice to the consumer that the trader is unable to resolve the complaint with the consumer”

What is this "Government legislation" you are quoting?

Umkomaas

Looks more like a POPLA appeal rather than one to a PPC. Highly unlikely to have any impact either in terms of them even giving it any time, let alone a cancellation or a POPLA code. But as it stands it’s a mishmash and sending them links seems rather futile.

Why not just concentrate on the first section about the availability of ADR for 12 months, then add the blue text template from the sticky after that. It will look more coherent than your present draft.

nosferatu1001

Presumably

CONSUMER PROTECTION
The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes
(Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015

Fatcarp

Thanks for advice. I didnt send that due to the negative feedback on here regarding it which i appreciate honestly and people sparing time to advise.

So far i have emailed the following and also sent in the post with recorded delivery ..... this is after receiving a letter before action.. i got this info of the forum, and adapted it to suit and am finding it very helpful. Thanks again and i will keep you posted. Any thoughts on my letter or advice is appreciated.
Reply to LBA as follows:

Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd.

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Action of 15th November 2017.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your case places reliance upon.

You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. Your must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

You must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter, as a serial litigator of small claims, should be aware of them. As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm such as yourselves are sending a consumer a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including yourself, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until you at CEL have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Have you had your claim form now? These CEL claims are easy to see off, so do come back.