Civil Enforcement Ltd

BloHar

I have been pursued by Civil Enforcement for over a year for allegedly parking in a car park. My car wasn't parked in the car park but apparently was driven past a camera that is sited on a road near the car park (not at the entrance). I asked for evidence and they sent me two pictures of my car going along an unmarked unidentified road. No terms and conditions are displayed on the camera post only a notice to say that they are displayed in the car park.
I have completed my defence and have sent it off and I have been told that the case will be held in my local court.
I have today received a letter from Civil Enforcement saying that they will accept a payment of £100.00 if I pay within 14 days. They also enclosed a Witness statement saying that I had parked in a specific car park between such and such times and had breached the contract. I have never received evidence of this because my car wasn't parked in the car park. All they have ever sent me is two photos of my car on an unidentified road with a time stamp on them. Also they have never provided evidence as to who was driving the car.
I have made all this very clear in my defence statement but I am unsure what to do next.
Do I write back to them repeating my request for evidence or do I just wait and see if I have to go to court?
I'm unclear about how I address the issue of me being contacted as the keeper not the driver.
Please try not to be impatient - I am doing my best to get my head round all this - I am not an expert.

Quentin

Now you have a court allocated it does look like they have paid for a hearing


Did you tell them who the driver was?


If not you need to edit your post to remove details of the driver


The ppcs monitor here and can use your posts against you

BloHar

No - I have not agreed with any thing they have said just repeatedly asked for evidence which they haven't provided.
They say that I am in breach of contract, this is what they state in their witness statement but in my submitted defence I have made it clear that as my car didn't enter the car park I did not enter into a contract. The photo they sent me shows my car on a road during the time I was alleged to have been parked in the car park with no evidence of signage

Redx

so send them an SAR using the GDPR and get all their docs , photos and evidence

and as you did not answer the question asked above, here it is again

Did you tell them who the driver was?

there are two possible answers

yes I did tell them who the driver was

or

no , I did not tell them who the driver was

as for the wordings, they are not alleging that a PERSON was in the car park, but are alleging that your vehicle was in the car park

it may seem pedantic but the distinction is relevant, because CEL will try to argue that the keeper was the driver on the day and the driver entered their car park and the vehicle was parked on the car park

ps:- how long are they saying the vehicle was on this car park for ?

ie:- what is the alleged contravention ?

BloHar

I DID ANSWER THE QUESTION, as you don't seem to have read my reply I will clarify
The question was "Did you tell them who the driver was?" My answer was "NO" - I cannot make it any plainer than that.
I do not know what SAR stands for nor GDPR.

However I have already asked for all their documents, photos and evidence and I have received them. As I said in my original post they sent me a photo of my car moving on an unidentified road not parked in a car park - the original photo on the Parking Charge Notice had no time stamp - when I asked them for evidence they sent me the same photo with a time stamp on it. They are claiming that I was parked between 13.54 and 14.28.
The alleged contravention is that I breached the terms and conditions as displayed on signage in the car park.
In my defence statement I have said that this car did not enter the car park so no contract was entered in to. They have not provided any evidence to show that the car was in the car park or identification of the driver.
If I have to go to court I cannot see how they can prove that I was the driver or that i entered the car park without evidence.
They were originally asking me for £285.00 if I settled before going to court but in their most recent letter they have said that they will accept £100.00 in settlement.

I have no wish to go to court but I do not intend to pay for something that I have not done and i do not like being bullied (by anyone).

Thank you for your help

Coupon-mad

I have today received a letter from Civil Enforcement saying that they will accept a payment of £100.00 if I pay within 14 days.

Same as here, it's CEL standard current tactic; they mock up a witness statement early:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5889452/cel-witness-statement

Ignore it and wait to see your court date and then work on your own WS & evidence.

CEL will almost certainly discontinue later, before they have to shell out the hearing fee.

Redx

BloHar wrote: »

No - the driver has not been identified

I have not agreed with any thing they have said just repeatedly asked for evidence which they haven't provided.

They say that I am in breach of contract, this is what they state in their witness statement but in my submitted defence I have made it clear that as my car didn't enter the car park I did not enter into a contract. The photo they sent me shows my car on a road during the time I was alleged to have been parked in the car park with no evidence of signage

not sure how shooting the messengers on here will help you at all but I have amended the above to show how it should have been expressed more thoroughly and no ambiguity

and for clarity

I DID read your reply , completely and fully , so YOUR ASSUMPTION was wrong, my problem is that I could not ascertain if you had named the driver or not

nor could I glean what the contravention was that CEL allege happened (I understood your story, but not what their PCN stated as you have not told us and still havent)

I now am aware from your reply that they allege the vehicle was on the car park for 34 minutes and didnt comply with the onsite signage, but as we have not seen the signage we do not know what the alleged actual contravention was (be it not displaying a permit, or not purchasing a ticket etc)

if you have their evidence than you must have pics of the signs and should know what they allege has failed to be done if the vehicle was there as they allege, even though your story is that the vehicle never entered the car park - ergo it never happened

the point is to assume that it did in order to work out what they allege that the driver failed to do (then counter it with the argument that the vehicle was never on the car park in any case) - because you are claiming that their POC are false , so work out what their actual POC are

your problem here is that either you are using POFA2012 to defend as keeper (but not as a witness to the event) , or if the judge said "were you the driver" ? and you were, - then do you defend as the driver or a witness in the vehicle ? - ie:- present at the time and so know the facts as this may win the case

sometimes being the driver has its advantages you see

so to quote you in post #1

Please try not to be impatient - I am doing my best to get my head round all this

and GOOGLE SEARCH or similar will tell you what SAR and GDPR mean , plus a lot of other basic stuff too (so we assume you know or can easily find out those answers , same as we would say BBC and not British Broadcasting Corporation, or B.T. and not British Telecom)

BloHar

Thank you for instructing me on how to word my postings - I left school so long ago I had forgotten how irritating I found the school teachers patronising and pedantic remarks. BBC is an acronym in common usage - SAR and GDPR are not - explaining what they stand for takes seconds - I would have automatically done that with a new user had I been in your, obviously experienced, position.
Also I have spent hours on this case researching and preparing my defence and replying to CEL's threatening letters so clarity is very welcome

As I have said I do appreciate your support but really do not appreciate the wording of your replies. If you no longer wish to give advice then I understand - I will find my way through this.

Having said that I will try and give you the back ground to this case and I will try very hard not to leave anything out as that seems to irritate you. I hesitate to tell you that I am unable to post a copy of my defence, I don't know why this isn't allowed, as I imagine that you will shoot me down in flames about my stupidity and ignorance.

On the 14th July 2017 I received a PCN from CEL stating that my car was parked in a specific car park from 13.54 to 14.28 on the 12th June 2017 and demanding a payment of£85.00 reduced to £40.00 if paid within 14 days. The PCN showed two pictures of my car on an unidentified road going in opposite directions. There was no time stamp on the photos.
I replied immediately and said that I had no intention of paying for parking as no evidence had been provided.
Between 28/72017 and 08/03/2018 I had three letters from CEL and one from QDR solicitors demanding payment and warning me of the consequences of non payment. I replied to all of these letters refusing payment and asking for evidence which has not been forthcoming.
On 18/06/2017 I received a Claim Form from the CCBC for monies incurred by my breach of the terms and conditions. The claim was for £221.00 plus £17.83 interest = £238.83. A court fee of £25.00 and Legal representative's costs of £50.00 were also shown totalling £313. 83.
I completed the acknowledgement of Service form and sent it back to CCBC. I then wrote to CEL requesting that they release all documents and photos relating to the claim against me and asked for details of their terms and conditions. I received these documents on 31/07/2018 but still no copy of their Terms and Conditions
I had by then written and sent off my defence form under the headings No Contract, Non Compliance with Pre Action Protocol and No Signage
In the mean time I had been contacted again by the CCBC asking if I wanted to go to mediation, which I refused and requested that the case be heard in my local court.
I was informed by the CCBC 0n 09/08/2018 that my case would be heard in my local court but no date was given.
I received a letter on 30th August from CEL saying that they would accept £100.00 in settlement if I paid within 14 days enclosing a Witness Statement and a photo of their Terms and Conditions which they say are displayed in the car park. The signage states that parking is for permit holders only - visitors must obtain a permit at reception each time they visit - if someone parks without a valid permit they are agreeing to pay £85.00 (£440.00) if paid within 14 days.

My intention is to reply to this letter declining to pay and asking them to identify the siting of the ANPR camera that was used to capture my car. They are stating that this camera is sited at the entrance to the car park which is not true. I have revisited the area and the camera is sited on a road which is at right angles to the car park in question and about 100 yards from the entrance to the car park with no signage displayed. They have repeatedly maintained that the signage is displayed in the car park and that I breached the contract when I entered the car park.
This road does not just lead to the car park - it leads to an admin. area and what appears to be a loading bay with no signage displayed.
I have taken a photo of the camera and I have Google photos of the layout of the area clearly showing the location of the camera, the distance to the car park and the location of the camera in relation to the car park.
It is quite possible for a car driver to pass this camera en route to another area without entering or parking in the car park that CEL have identified. Quite clearly being captured on this ANPR camera is not evidence that a car entered the car park.
I have read the terms of POFA2012 and can confirm that CEL have made no attempt to establish that I was the driver and have provided no evidence of this - should I point this out in my reply to their latest letter?
Also they did not initially contact me within 14 days of the alleged incident - I have researched this and was under the impression, maybe wrongly, that I could not use this.
I am also considering telling them, quite truthfully, that I am a 73 year old female pensioner without the funds to pay the exorbitant fees that a solicitor would ask to defend my case.
If you feel inclined to comment any in put would be very much appreciated. Many thanks in advance

beamerguy

BloHar wrote: »

Thank you for instructing me on how to word my postings - I left school so long ago I had forgotten how irritating I found the school teachers patronising and pedantic remarks. BBC is an acronym in common usage - SAR and GDPR are not - explaining what they stand for takes seconds - I would have automatically done that with a new user had I been in your, obviously experienced, position.
Also I have spent hours on this case researching and preparing my defence and replying to CEL's threatening letters so clarity is very welcome

As I have said I do appreciate your support but really do not appreciate the wording of your replies. If you no longer wish to give advice then I understand - I will find my way through this.

Hmmm, having a go at posters is not good, mainly for you

SAR and GDPR are found in seconds with google

You can try to find your own way through with CEL ....
Whether you win is a different thing all together

Best to follow the advice on here even though it does
bring back memories of your teacher

Coupon-mad

BBC is an acronym in common usage - SAR and GDPR are not

GDPR is, to anyone working in a job using consumer data. I guess we assume people have heard of GDPR due to the huge press coverage only 3 months ago when the law change came in - apologies but we can't spell common acronyms out for everyone on every single thread, we would drown and be unable to properly help you and the dozens of others arriving here every day.

SAR is one of the acronyms I explain in the NEWBIES thread post #5 of the NEWBIES thread, along with 'POFA', 'NTK' etc. We would love to be so 'un-busy' that we can take time to explain SAR and GDPR to every poster individually, but no chance here I'm afraid!

Thank you for instructing me on how to word my postings - I left school so long ago I had forgotten how irritating I found the school teachers patronising and pedantic remarks.

LOL, point taken, I am a pedant, so is Redx I believe!

You will get our mindset and humour in the end, when you win, and we'll get you there and probably without any hearing at all, CEL will discontinue if you follow our advice. CEL always do.

To be fair to Redx, it is vital for us to know if the driver was identified - if unsure, assume NOT. It's always the claimant's case to prove; their burden not yours.

I was informed by the CCBC 0n 09/08/2018 that my case would be heard in my local court but no date was given.
I received a letter on 30th August from CEL saying that they would accept £100.00 in settlement if I paid within 14 days enclosing a Witness Statement and a photo of their Terms and Conditions which they say are displayed in the car park.

OK so you are waiting for the letter from your local Court, which will give a hearing date and the date by which both parties must exchange their WS and evidence.

This standard CEL letter is a mock-up which they no doubt find causes people to:

- pay them £100 to make it go away, or

- cause panic & confusion that CEL are 'on the case' & ahead with their WS, or

- reply and blab about who was driving, and show CEL whether this person is a victim who is not on a forum and is there for the taking. Saying things like this is exactly what they are hoping for:

I am also considering telling them, quite truthfully, that I am a 73 year old female pensioner without the funds to pay the exorbitant fees that a solicitor would ask to defend my case.

So please don't even say that!

You do not have to reply at all to a random 'without prejudice, save as to costs' offer, and it can't be mentioned later in court, so I would ignore that.

I have read the terms of POFA2012 and can confirm that CEL have made no attempt to establish that I was the driver and have provided no evidence of this - should I point this out in my reply to their latest letter?
Also they did not initially contact me within 14 days of the alleged incident - I have researched this and was under the impression, maybe wrongly, that I could not use this.

I'd say with CEL, it's your main winning point, that CEL have used a non-POFA PCN, served too late to be considered a NTK as described in para 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012.

It is certainly the point that wins appeals first go v CEL - one email kills their PCNs. They simply can't win a case if they have not identified who was driving and the keeper is unable to recall (even if the Judge asks) because anyone can drive a car even if not named on the insurance, as long as they have fully-comp insurance allowing them to driver any car (e.g. I have that myself so I might have been driving!).

Hope that's clear? Sit tight, ignore that letter and wait for the one from the court.

BloHar

Yes, you are probably right - I am appreciative of the advice and will take it however I thought that these forums were here to help. I don't find being treated like a stupid child helpful even if the advice is sound. If someone asked me for help, which they frequently do, I would always treat them with courtesy and respect. In my opinion it's time that someone flagged this up.