Civil Enforcement Ltd - their error!

Bubbles_82

Hi,

First time posting on here so I hope this is the correct place. I just wanted some advice on a parking charge notice I’ve received from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Basically, they have fined me for parking at a KFC car park for over 24 hrs when in fact this is not the case. What actually happened (if my memory serves me correctly) is that I went there one day, circled the car park and left straight away as the drive through was closed. I subsequently went back at a similar time the following day (only visiting for a maximum of 10/15 minutes as the drive through had reopened). The cameras seem to have clocked me being there from 3:15pm one day to 3:30pm the next day. This is clearly an error on their part and I have so far raised an appeal and also contacted KFC to see if they have any CCTV footage to prove I did not park there overnight. I guess my question is, what will happen now? Is the onus on me to somehow prove I did not park there all that time, or is the onus on them to prove that I did?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

Guys_Dad

Look on this forum for "double dip". Loads of advice already on here that you can look at while waiting for replies.

The_Deep

Some reading

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5550336

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Umkomaas

Go through the process as outlined in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 re sending in the initial appeal template. Simultaneously, because I think you might get some extra traction, send in a complaint to Steve Clark of the BPA (copying him in on the correspondence you've so far received from CEL) and ask him to investigate just what checks were carried out by CEL prior to issuing this Notice to Keeper to ensure this was not a case of a double-dip. Ask him to consider who in their right mind would park a car for 24 hours in a drive-through?

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Also copy that complaint to the DVLA and ask them to also investigate, because it is clear that CEL had no reasonable cause (use those words) to access your personal data. Their lazy approach in not checking cases which are obviously so unlikely to be correct has caused your personal data to be accessed erroneously and you would like the DVLA to deal with this serious leak.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

Bubbles_82

Thank you for your replies so far. They are extremely interesting and I’ll definitely be taking up some of the advice. Little update- I called KFC and they are able to provide me CCTV footage of my movement on these two days which is a bit of a result. Not too sure what I do now though- wait for the result on the appeal and then contact POPLA with my evidence if it’s not upheld? Or shall I hit Civil Enforcement with the evidence now?

Le_Kirk

Getting a bit ahead! Normal process is: -
Appeal using the PPC system - appeal rejected
Appeal to POPLA - appeal rejected
Receive LBCCA/LBCCC - send rebut letter
Receive court papers
Carry out AOS on line
Prepare defence and send to court and claimant.
As you can see, you are a long way off sending your defence to anybody. Keep your powder dry!

dont_use_vistaprint

Is this a private company ? I'm still comfortable ignoring or responding that the invoice they have sent in an error and I dont even appeal. Nothing I have seen from the handful of cases they have won convinces me I need to worry about them - Unless they can prove you read, understood, accepted T&C's and entered into a contract its unlikely they will proceed to court. I have had 5 or 6 and none has gone to court.

Those issued by councils and/or under railway bylaws, very different of course.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Also copy that complaint to the DVLA and ask them to also investigate, because it is clear that CEL had no reasonable cause (use those words) to access your personal data. Their lazy approach in not checking cases which are obviously so unlikely to be correct has caused your personal data to be accessed erroneously and you would like the DVLA to deal with this serious leak.
ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

DVLA are terrible for this, any ex-bouncer coke head gets a bulk search access now to our names and address and they never check the reasonable cause. Only a matter of time until something bad happens, the types of people with access to this data

Umkomaas

dont_use_vistaprint wrote: »

Is this a private company ? I'm still comfortable ignoring or responding that the invoice they have sent in an error and I dont even appeal. Nothing I have seen from the handful of cases they have won convinces me I need to worry about them - Unless they can prove you read, understood, accepted T&C's and entered into a contract its unlikely they will proceed to court. I have had 5 or 6 and none has gone to court.

Those issued by councils and/or under railway bylaws, very different of course.

Seriously worrying underestimation of CEL in this post. They rank alongside ParkingEye and UKCPM as the top three most litigious operators in the country. Ignore CEL (especially at the court end of proceedings) at your peril - this is a serious warning.

@vistaprint - if you've been routinely ignoring CEL tickets over the past few years, have you done a recent check on your credit score?

dont_use_vistaprint

Umkomaas wrote: »

Seriously worrying underestimation of CEL in this post. They rank alongside ParkingEye and UKCPM as the top three most litigious operators in the country. Ignore CEL (especially at the court end of proceedings) at your peril - this is a serious warning.

@vistaprint - if you've been routinely ignoring CEL tickets over the past few years, have you done a recent check on your credit score?

Yes - My credit history is perfect and theres no such thing as a credit score. As you will know CECL or any other private company cannot put defaults on your credit file without you entering into a legally binding contact and only a court can say you did so with a private parking company.

My comments come from actual experience getting these companies to drop claims and withdraw from planned court action.

You are correct ignore is no longer the best idea, but its often better for some people as when they do respond they incriminate themselves. I now always respond to every single communication (by email which is acceptable by courts, even though the company often doesn't have email and its an effort to find the directors email addresses, its the easiest and best way to respond) , typically asking them to clarify why they think I owe them the amount stated. It often never gets passed that stage, not sufficient info to respond so no need to deny or admit anything - a simple repeated 'I'm sorry I think you have made a mistake , unless you can clarify then no payment will be made', is often all that is needed. After 2-3 years of that they give up.

Iv'e not followed recent cases no - can you post a couple of examples ?

Iv'e been sent a few examples in the post that made me laugh though. Like where they have won a case where the person admitted they were in a contract to park a car with them. If you think you owe a company money, if you believe you entered into a contract to park with them then just pay the ticket.

fisherjim

dont_use_vistaprint wrote: »

Yes - My credit history is perfect and theres no such thing as a credit score. As you will know CECL or any other private company cannot put defaults on your credit file without you entering into a legally binding contact and only a court can say you did so with a private parking company.

My comments come from actual experience getting these companies to drop claims and withdraw from planned court action.

You are correct ignore is no longer the best idea, but its often better for some people as when they do respond they incriminate themselves. I now always respond to every single communication (by email which is acceptable by courts, even though the company often doesn't have email and its an effort to find the directors email addresses, its the easiest and best way to respond) , typically asking them to clarify why they think I owe them the amount stated. It often never gets passed that stage, not sufficient info to respond so no need to deny or admit anything - a simple repeated 'I'm sorry I think you have made a mistake , unless you can clarify then no payment will be made', is often all that is needed. After 2-3 years of that they give up.

Iv'e not followed recent cases no - can you post a couple of examples ?

Iv'e been sent a few examples in the post that made me laugh though. Like where they have won a case where the person admitted they were in a contract to park a car with them. If you think you owe a company money, if you believe you entered into a contract to park with them then just pay the ticket.

Carry on like this and you may find your advice is worthless, and you are eating your words.

Why not try your theroy in a Parking Eye site, that will be a good experience for you

I have no intention of pointing you to the hundreds of recent threads that prove your theory is wrong, I'll leave that to you, have you even studied Beavis?

dont_use_vistaprint

fisherjim wrote: »

Carry on like this and you may find your advice is worthless, and you are eating your words.

Why not try your theroy in a Parking Eye site, that will be a good experience for you

I have no intention of pointing you to the hundreds of recent threads that prove your theory is wrong, I'll leave that to you, have you even studied Beavis?

Of course and its a shame as I think Toulson was bang on, but its helpful still in how to respond