CEL court letter

lorealv1

Hi everyone,
This is my first post ever. I've been reading through the many threads and I think I have found some very similar situations to the one we are in now. However, I would like some clarification on some points.


Backstory here:
We took our children to a soft play centre for a birtday party on a sunday 1-3pm (nearly 2 years ago). My daughter felt asleep in the car (she was 2 back then) so one of us didn't come in with us and stayed in the car with her for about 1 hour. Car park wasn't big but had only a handful of cars, we didnt' notice any signage about paying and ony the soft play was open on that day. We wrongly assumed (having attended many birthday parties at play centres) that the car park was free. It turned out we were suppossed to write down our names and registration plate on a piece of paper that was located on a table. No one ever told us that! Well a couple of months later we got a PCN (with photo )for £65 so I emailed the soft play and they told me as they didnt have me on their records I would have to talk to the PCN people directly (no help at all!). After reading many posts, we decided to ignore the many letters and bin them.

Yesterday (27/05/2018) we received the claim form from CEL (will attach soon). I believe we can fight against. I will be posting my defense draft in a couple of days, I have already gone online and did the AoS.



I would like to know in the (seems) unlikely case we go to court and lose, how much more would we have to pay? (now is £346.28). We are planning to apply for a mortgage in exactly a years time from now and we will be moving away (from england to wales) in a couple of months.


The soft play centre has now closed but i will see if i can through someone with reference on the party that was held there (would this help?). Im still friends with the party organisers who could claim we attended (again, would this be of any help in this case?)


I appreciate any advice!



Thank you

Quentin

If you have read the newbies FAQ thread which everyone is politely asked to before starting a new thread then you know that throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving.

You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you.

How have they calculated this £350 claim? £175 is a ball park figure normally in the unlikely event you end up in court and losing!

All this is irrelevant to your mortgage application unless you were to get a ccj against you and you ignored it or failed to pay it off in full within a month of the judgement

beamerguy

Once you have carefully read the NEWBIES thread
and edited your post as suggested, we get on to the
real nitty gritty about CEL

Get your husband to read and understand everything we
say here, CEL is not a big deal to beat and more often
than not, they scupper themselves because they know
they are operating a scam and will lose in court

YES ... CEL are scammers. Read about the poor
mentality of this scammer

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=CEL

As said, have they explained the amount of £346.28
which seems to be yet another scam figure CEL have
dreamed up.

Any claim before court must follow the new procedure
which means CEL must provide you with the evidence
and proof of their claim. This must include a breakdown
of the charge they purport. County courts do not like
spammers who inflate claims and this alone will go
against CEL.

Then they must give you 30 days before you respond.
All this has to happen before real court papers arrive.
If not, they break the law

At this stage you must reply but as keeper only, you
deny any charge and request proof of their claim

Then, you guys take pictures of the site, the signs, where
they are located, how easy they are to see and above
all where does it say you have to sign and register your
VRN on a piece of paper

CEL has a bad habit of going to court and then at the last
moment cancel.

It's a good idea really because you can claim costs
against them, especially if fall foul of any data protection
and in particular the new GDPR which became law on the
25/05/18

Reading the above link, you will see that a court slapped
them round the face with £900 costs.

All the free help you need is here to help you zap CEL

lorealv1

Thank you for your replies. I have now updaded the post. I didn't think I was identifying the driver but I have changed it anyway.



We cannot no longer take pictures from the site as the site doesn't exist anymore. All the industrial site plus the car park is being converting into flats.


Im planning to get a testimony from my friend who can affirm we were at the party therefore we were entitled to free parking. How do i send this as it has to be signed? would this go with my defense?


Thank you.

Loadsofchildren123

lorealv1 wrote: »

Thank you for your replies. I have now updaded the post. I didn't think I was identifying the driver but I have changed it anyway.



We cannot no longer take pictures from the site as the site doesn't exist anymore. All the industrial site plus the car park is being converting into flats. Shame - but CEL will eventually have to provide a copy of the signage. They should do at LBC stage but don't usually do this until WS stage (please read newbies thread which explains these abbreviations and the process). You are entitled to know what the claim is for, so you must ask them for a complete copy of the signs at this stage. They'll probably ignore you though.


Im planning to get a testimony from my friend who can affirm we were at the party therefore we were entitled to free parking. How do i send this as it has to be signed? would this go with my defense?
Get it now, but it will be at the evidence stage you will use it. In your defence, you'll say driver was a genuine visitor to the site, driver was attending a birthday party at the soft play centre, there was no obvious signage that said anything about parking conditions, but you later discovered that users were supposed to sign in with their VRN at the soft play reception. However, no signs about that were obvious and so this was not done.
Then at WS stage, you will say driver was using the soft play centre and was in fact attending a birthday party there. Friend will do a statement saying "I confirm that X family were invited to my son/daughter's 5th (or whatever) birthday party on x date at x time and that they all attended. I am extremely embarrassed that they are now being chased to pay an extortionate amount of money for not having registered their details at reception". They may be able to comment on how the requirement to sign in was displayed/communicated.


If they make a WS they have to be prepared to attend court on the day. It may be better for them to do a letter which you will exhibit to your own WS. However the court will then give it slightly less weight.


All of this is slightly academic, however, when you learn about CEL. I'll link to a post I did earlier this morning - CEL never proceed to court, but wait until the last moment to pull out so you have to be ready to defend and to spend time on researching and drafting and making sure you comply with all the court rules. The newbies thread is your friend.



Thank you.

Some comments above in red

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74340096#Comment_74340096


Read my post #6 in this thread about CEL

lorealv1

"I confirm that X family were invited to my son/daughter's 5th (or whatever) birthday party on x date at x time and that they all attended. I am extremely embarrassed that they are now being chased to pay an extortionate amount of money for not having registered their details at reception"


My friend is happy to sign a letter so I can present alongside my defense however If I present this I will be giving up the identity of the driver? Would it matter? She will have to say we arrived to the party and we will say we arrived in the car with the registration in question.



Thank you

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Umkomaas

lorealv1 wrote: »

"I confirm that X family were invited to my son/daughter's 5th (or whatever) birthday party on x date at x time and that they all attended. I am extremely embarrassed that they are now being chased to pay an extortionate amount of money for not having registered their details at reception"


My friend is happy to sign a letter so I can present alongside my defense however If I present this I will be giving up the identity of the driver? Would it matter? She will have to say we arrived to the party and we will say we arrived in the car with the registration in question.



Thank you

Leave it out, no need. The basic template defence is enough to see this off. Follow the required process (as in any recent, successful CEL case on the forum) and you'll be going nowhere near a courtroom.

Loadsofchildren123

This is a dilemma frequently faced.
If you were driving and have a good driver's defence, I think it's senseless to hide behind keeper liability (unless they have clearly not complied with POFA meaning no keeper liability, and you can show that other people use your car).
Get the letter anyway. Add into it "I am aware that this letter may be put before the court in proceedings relating to the parking".
If you went as a family, you can still rely on this without admitting you were parking. You imply there were 2 adults (one who went in straight away, another who stayed in the car with the sleeping toddler). So you're not admitting being the driver, you're admitting having been there at the time.


It's partly academic because as Umkomaas says CEL won't go all the way. But they go far enough for you to have to do your defence and witness statement evidence. So I would throw it all in, but if you don't want it to be said you were driving, you say you weren't, and that you were with another adult (friend's letter should say the X Family attended....) and you don't identify the other adult.

lorealv1

Thank you all for your replies.


I have now drafted a defence, taken from a similar case. I have asked them for the particulars of claim, this was emailed and posted recorded on friday. Gave them 10 days to get back to me but im not holding my breath they will.


This defence is basically acknoledging my huband is the driver so Im not sure whether it will be wise to just change this one completly and go for "keepers liability" one.

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]



Background - the Defendant was an authorised patron of Kids Play Ltd Soft Play.
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, when parking at xxx car park on xxx/16. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant £100 'parking charge' for the lawful conduct described below.

2. The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of Kids Play Limited.

3. The Defendant has already proved that he was a patron of Kids Play Limited, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and signage that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset. I WILL CHASE UP THE FORMER MANAGER (HAVE SENT EMIAL ALREADY, SHE IS ON HOLIDAY)TO WRITE A LETTER STATING THE AGREEMENT FOR FREE PARKING WITH CEL.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. The date and time of the alleged breach of Terms was Sunday XXX fromXX to XX. The day on this alleged breach meant no other business located at this industrial site was open for business and there were only a handful of cars in the car park, most of them belonged to the Defendant!!!8217;s friends attending the private party held at Kids Play Ltd, who did not received a parking ticket for parking at this site during very similar hours.


Unclear terms - no agreement to pay a penalty for failure to use a parking form
4. According to the sparse, unlit signs in this car park, to avoid a Parking Charge, users of the service must either purchase a ticket by machine or phone OR must be "Patrons" of businesses, including Kids Play Limited.

4.1. At the time of parking on 10/07/16, the Defendant was a patron of Kids Play Ltd, and the Defendant has a letter from the party organiser at Kids Play Ltd which entitled them to free use of the car park in question. This evidence has been accepted by the manager of Kids Play Ltd as proof of patronage. MY FRIEND IS WILLING TO WRITE A LETTER SAYING WE ATTENDED THAT PARTY.

4.2. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to use a registration form at Kids Play Ltd or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''


Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations - breach
5. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant phoned Kids Play Ltd and had a fairly long conversation with one of the Managers, who was unhappy to hear what Civil Enforcement Ltd was taking the defendant to court and expressed his disgust with the Claimant suing their patrons.

5.1. By failing to alert patrons of Kids Play Ltd to the registration form from a consumer is a 'misleading omission' of material facts. These breaches of the CPUTRs 2008 have caused the unfair PCN, prevented its cancellation before proceeding started and this conduct by the Claimant has severely disadvantaged the Defendant.

5.3. The only route offered was an 'appeal' to Civil Enforcement Ltd themselves, but the Defendant knew he had done nothing wrong as a matter of principle, and honestly believed from research that private parking charges and the appeals systems were unlikely to be fairly weighted in favour of consumers.

5.4. This fact was later confirmed in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill on 2nd February 2018, where more than one MP shamed companies like the Claimant with quotes that include: ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; ''wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead''; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; ''unreasonable; operating in a disgusting way''; ''appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing''; ''outrageous scam''; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''. !!!8220;It is important that motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and evolves a process that is consistent. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment!!!8230;have no place in twentieth first century!!!8221;.


No locus standi
6. In order to issue and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. Civil Enforcement Ltd has taken no steps to provide evidence that such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.


No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished
7. Even if the Claimant is able to produce such a landowner contract, it is averred that there can be no legitimate interest arguable by the Claimant in this case. When Civil Enforcement Ltd, unfairly ticket a patron of Kids Play, any commercial justification in the form of support by Kids Play for such unfair ticketing is absent.

7.1. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.


Data Protection Act and BPA Code of Practice breach
8. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.

8.1. The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land.

8.2. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR, together with a Registration Form as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons), and

iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and the registration form system and how the data captured on both would be used, and

v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.

9. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice.




Unconscionable and unrecoverable inflation of the 'parking charge'
10. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of £50, which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

14.1. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, Civil Enforcement Ltd have not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

15. The added 'legal' cost is in fact an artificially invented figure, which represents a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the sum was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to already include a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set sum dressed up as a fee or charge agreed in contract. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime, and it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, and would have failed.

15.1. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge was not held to be a penalty but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

16. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Name/signature

Date[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please do let me know what you all think! Thank you!
[/FONT]