CEL CCC - Directions Questionnaire (Title changed for attention)

Umkomaas

beamerguy wrote: »

So what, don't be silly ????

Are you from a parking company ????

We've seen him before poking at something he has no clue about. Remember this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5885276/whats-the-issue-everyone-has-with-parking-tickets

This is how he introduced himself:

I'm not too au fait with the issues with private parking companies.

And then goes on to prove categorically that his opening salvo was absolutely spot on.

This is what Computersaysno responded with a little later in the thread:

And therein lies the issue.....


You're ignorant in this area, yet seem happy to shove in your tuppence worth with an ill-informed Daily Mail approach.


Educate yourself before coming on here and spouting tripe.

But despite many inputs from people who do know what they are talking about, including at least three solicitors/legally qualified posters, Deastons still seems astonishingly clueless, borne out by continuing to think these are 'fines', especially when LoC123, a practising solicitor went to extraordinary lengths to spell out the entire scam for him, in very simple English.

Deastons, the two basic problems are these:


The MO of the PPC and the amounts they charge.


The MO:
The MO is to bully and harass until a driver who has a GOOD reason to expect a pcn to be cancelled pays it. They reject virtually every first layer appeal. If they're a BPA member, you then get to appeal to POPLA. POPLA adjudicators are woefully untrained and apply a reverse burden of proof. They are also not regulated or accountable.
So eg. a driver says "the signs were badly positioned, not lit, very small, and I couldn't see them", the PPC says "there were plenty of legible signs" and POPLA believes the PPC because the driver has not proved their point. POPLA has no complaints procedure and doesn't consistently apply the correct principles - you can make 5 identical appeals to 5 adjudicators and 1 might succeed but he other 4 get rejected.
If they aren't a BPA member, but an IPC member, you get to appeal to IAS. IAS is owned by the people who own the IPC. So their interests are firmly in the camp of the PPCs. Virtually all appeals are rejected and it appears that those which succeed are quite literally picked out of a hat so that IAS can say that x% of appeals succeed and give the illusion of giving all appeals proper consideration. They are even less accountable than POPLA.
After appeals are exhausted, the PPC then goes to different debt collectors, who write on a frequent basis, adding on unjustified (and non-contractual) extra charges which the PPC doesn't actually ever have to pay, and making alarming threats about CCJs and bad credit which lead ordinary folk to believe that if they lose they will have a CCJ and never be able to get a mortgage (which is balderdash, great word eh?).
Then they start writing letters from solicitors, but they aren't from the solicitors they are actually still from debt collectors.
Eventually, they instruct solicitors, or take it back in-house, and write a formal Letter Before Claim repeating all the threats, and adding on extra charges for good measure. Then they issue a claim. Then they pursue the claim, even if the driver/RK has a good defence. They run these cases on a shoestring conveyor belt, and don't even seem to read the defences. The court system for small claims is also run on a shoestring and the court doesn't pick up on the fact that the claim is ALWAYS without fail very shoddily drafted. Although people know it's a parking charge, they only really understand the basis of the claim (breach of contract, the contract being offered in the signage) if they find their way here or to a similar self-help forum.
The point is, the PPC does not weed out the strong defences and give in. They just carry on regardless.
Some people give in at the start.
Others ignore and bury their heads
Others find their way here and start their battle planning very early on.
Of those who either deliberately don't give in or bury their heads, a percentage of these give in and pay after a few months of threatening letters.
Of those still in the game, many give up when faced with a court claim, which they find terrifying.
Of those who have a claim and still don't pay, some defend badly, others just don't turn up at court.
The PPCs have 6 years to sue, so often they are writing to an old address and people often discover a CCJ they never knew about, for a parking ticket they didn't know about or assumed had been cancelled following appeal/correspondence.
Even those who prepare for the battle, and battle valiantly all the way to court with a strong defence, the PPCs STILL carry on. Because a percentage of even these folk will give in rather than actually go to court.


The cases they lose they treat as a loss leader.
The cases they win cost them more in legal fees than they actually recover. But again a loss leader.


So that's their MO. Bully, bully, bully.


Next the charge. My local council charges £50 for a parking ticket, £25 if paid within 14 days. Most PPCs offer £100, discounted to £60/70. There is no justification for these levels of charges.


Examples:
The real scourge of PPCs - residential. They get brought in by naïve management companies/committees, who don't realise that all they want to do is make money and that if there is nobody else to ticket then they will ticket residents - eg whose permit has fallen off the windscreen, but which is actually face up on the passenger seat and can quite clearly be seen, or where someone's changed their car and forgotten to register their new one on the white list. They accept no excuses and just carry on indiscriminately.


PPCs operating in car parks of businesses where drivers can "sign in" on a tablet at reception for free parking. Only the tablet often doesn't work. Even when you can show you were using the gym/pub (or whatever) and explain that it wasn't working and how the manager has told you this is a frequent issue, they say "well you didn't enter your reg on the tablet so we're entitled to £100 off you". And then, as per their MO, they sue.


Then there are the PPCs whose operatives deliberately photograph cars at an angle to make it appear that there was no permit or P&D ticket. When there was one. You then say "look at my photo, my permit/ticket was right there!" they'll say "well our photos show it wasn't". There was even one case of a driver ticketed because IT WAS SNOWING AND THE SNOW COVERED UP THEIR PERMIT!!!! IIRC there was also one where it was rainy so the permit couldn't be read even though it was correctly displayed.


Then there are the ANPR tickets, where ANPR, notorious for malfunctioning, misrecords data and the PPC just makes it up or just won't investigate and admit they are wrong. Eg a driver goes to the supermarket on Friday, then goes back on Saturday because they forgot something. ANPR doesn't record them leaving and returning, or the data is there but is not noticed. So they get a ticket telling them their car was there for 30 hours. Even when the driver can show the PPC that they were elsewhere, the PPC still pursues them and sues them.


Then there are those PPCs who deliberately fake evidence and lie in court about it (eg doctoring APNR data, the example about photos taken from an obscure angle etc).


I could go on. But I won't. This is about more than just a wilful "I ignored the signs and the terms, but if I can get out of it on a technicality I will".

HayleyD83

Update - Sainsburies complaints department claim there is nothing that they can do as they are a separate company. I have emailed their CEO. Dependant on the outcome of that I will have to contest the claim form!

HayleyD83

Redx wrote: »

mmm, you still have not edited your post at #1 to remove all hint of who did what or was or wasnt liable (hint - plead the 5th)

and there is no S in DEFENCE , so check from now on

you dont appear to have given us the exact POC details word for word, but a short summary, which is not what I stated earlier. CEL put all sorts of c*** into the POC details, including the costs and legal fees etc in order to inflate their claim

full details means - full details (but no PERSONAL details like VRM , claim ref , login password , etc)

thank you

I've now updated original post - Thanks
Word for word the POC reads: 'Claim for monies relating to a Parking Charge for parking in a private car park managed by the Claimant in breach of the terms + conditions (T+Cs). Drivers are allowed to park in accordance with T+Cs of use. ANPR Cameras and/or manual patrols are used to monitor vehicles entering + exiting the site.
Debt + Damages claimed the sum of 236.00
Violation dates: 17/09/2017
Time in: 09.15 Time out 10.18
PCN ref: xxxxxxx
Car reg XXXXXX
Car park Sainsbury's Chessington

A couple of points which may be noteworthy: The original PCN Shows two images of my car facing in different directions on a road with no reference to the surroundings, no time stamp, literally could have been anywhere.
Civil enforcement raised the debt to £140 in December last year with no explanation only to state ' in accordance with the terms of parking'
now they are claiming an additional £100 in 'debt and damages' - surely this cannot fly?

Deastons

beamerguy wrote: »

So what, don't be silly ????

Are you from a parking company ????

Take no notice of Deastons

But the rules would have shown a time limit for the parking and then the penalty for overstaying. They overstayed.

If the company takes them to court, what would their defence be?

Half_way

there is no penalty, there. is no fine, you don't appear to know what you are talking about
As for defence three are many angles.

HayleyD83

Half_way wrote: »

there is no penalty, there. is no fine, you don't appear to know what you are talking about
As for defence three are many angles.

Would be really grateful if you could point me in the right direction!

Redx

Deastons wrote: »

But the rules would have shown a time limit for the parking and then the penalty for overstaying. They overstayed.

If the company takes them to court, what would their defence be?

are you saying that CEL can issue a penalty ? if so, please state the legislation so we can all learn from this, seeing as they are not allowed to be an official authority nor pass themselves off as one, so cannot issue penalty notices nor use that word in their blurb either

which rules would state that there is a time limit for parking ?

the BPA CoP covers the rules of engagement and allows for an overstay, plus how do you know that they are not disabled and qualify for "reasonable adjustment" under the Equality Act 2010 ? (like I do)

if you want to help with the defence, write a draft and post it so that the OP can crib from it for their own defence, they can start by reading the recent BARGEPOLE defences and use those as a basis for a bespoke defence of their own (newbies faq STICKY thread, post #2)

or start your own thread to debate the issues you seem to think are important, leavings this OP free to sort out her own legal court claim with help and advice, not criticism

beamerguy

Deastons wrote: »

But the rules would have shown a time limit for the parking and then the penalty for overstaying. They overstayed.

If the company takes them to court, what would their defence be?

Whoops, suggest you read a lot more on the subject
before such comments

Only parking companies make such comments
as yours ?

So come on, who is the parking company, your secret
is safe with us

nosferatu1001

OP - go check the newbies thread

Post 2
You can easily find this. Page 1 of the forum, about three from the top

You have to do the legwork on this. SHow us your draft defence ASAP.

HayleyD83

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

OP - go check the newbies thread

Post 2
You can easily find this. Page 1 of the forum, about three from the top

You have to do the legwork on this. SHow us your draft defence ASAP.

I've trawled the small claims section of the newbies thread - can't seem to find anything pertinent to my situation. (as far as i know - And I will revisit the car park this evening never, expected it to get this far to be honest!) There are signs in the car park stating 45 mins free parking.

I read somewhere about there having to be a 'Grace Period' or the fact that CEL does not have the authority to enforce this so called 'fine' but struggling to find the legal bumpf to back this up

Actual circumstance where that I was helping my 88 year old Grandfather who has Alzheimers with his shopping -CEL Don't seem to care about this and nor will the court!