Civil Enforcement Ltd - Have I left it too late for a POPLA?

FernandoYoghurt

Hum. It looks like that file sharing site remove it as soon as it's downloaded so when I tested it that removed it!

I'll try again.
My WS - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rrTAEZkqP5qOYHJ63CuAFSHhbqFw9y5i/view?usp=sharing
CE's WS - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KEzKX-how16hnxLb7S-oqz63jKxyet3p/view?usp=sharing

I've altered the section highlighted in yellow to include the actual figures in my case. I do now note that the breakdown of the final figure is included in their WS so maybe I should update that paragraph

I also noticed that photo dated 13/11/2019 page 19 of the WS seems to show a very different view than the one I took on 04/09/2019... clearly someone decided that it wasn't good enough where it was.

Additionally, page 20 shows a photo from 13/11/2019 that's from a totally different location. Makes me wonder if I can take as read that the rest of the photos are actually from the location in question.

FernandoYoghurt

Two other things that I thought it might be worth including.
1/ A copy of an invoice from my employer showing the rate I am billed out at.to support the further costs section
2/ A copy of a bank statement showing the transaction at Bargain Booze (If I paid by card...) -  I must have paid cash nothing on my bank statement

Coupon-mad

Yes - if you are claiming more than £19 per hour in costs you do need to evidence this. You will probably not get those costs though because even the £19ph depends on a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

I saw a typo: 

"line of site" should be sight.

You have two paragraphs 4s but I'd remove your later 4, and also all of 5, 6 & 7 entirely.

No need to say quite as much about which shops/bank you visited - and certainly never say you saw a sign that 'clearly' told you that parking was limited to 45 minutes.

The truth is more likely that you DIDN'T see any signs on the day of the parking event because they are at leg height and hidden the minute a vehicle parks in front of them.

The signs are also not compliant with the BPA CoP, which requires the BPA roundel (see the BPA CoP applicable in 2019).

Certainly add stuff that tears apart their signage evidence.

All your photos need the metadata date embedded in the image, or they aren't useful as evidence and could be called out as irrelevant.  Use a free 'date imprinter' tool, or screenshot your photos and use the screenshots instead because an iphone screenshot includes the date of image.

The second half of your WS is very generic 'copy & paste' (rather like the first few pages of CEL's!) and none of those paragraphs are dated and it's very long.

If any of it is repeating exactly what was in your defence, then remove or prune it hugely.  Add paragraph numbering and don't just repeat whole paras already in the defence.

Looking at their 'land controller' document, I'd be stating in your WS that this is not evidence of landowner authority because the company named looks like a local property agent (middle man) and isn't evidence of any authority flowing from the landowner. Get the land registry ownership page as evidence and add it as an exhibit.  Costs £3 or £4 to buy that online.  Add that to your costs assessment page.

Also who/what on earth is a 'land controller' anyway, who is Nigel who signed it with no position in the company stated, and:

- why is his electronic signature added in 2019, over four years later than the document purports to have been created (2015) and several months AFTER the parking event, and

- why does a document purporting to date from 2015 (or is it 2019) use the brand new term 'Approved Parking Association' (APA) which is a completely new phrase to identify the BPA or IPC, and was ONLY first used in Summer/Autumn 2020 by the Government, in their first iteration of the new DLUHC Code of Practice and the first (Sept 2020) Public Consultation. Before Summer 2020 'APA' was not a thing (at all).

The BPA was (and still is on their website and in their Code) identified only as an 'ATA' (Approved Trade Association) which was the only phrase/acronym used before the Government stepped in. So how did a new 2020 acronym (invented by the DLUHC) find its way into a purported 2015/2019 document?

Fruitcake

My interpretation is that you are allowed 45 minutes at each shop, making a total of up to 135 minutes on site. Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies.

There are no images showing the OP's vehicle near any of the "45 minute" signs. The FREE PARKING signs have no time limit on them.

Somebody was changing signs in November 2019 because there is one on the ground next to a ladder. There is no proof the "45 minute" signs were present at the material time or were within the eyeline of the motorist.


The confirmation of authority does not state the identity of the landowner, and there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner.
There is no company called New Acre Properties Limited registered with Companies House.

There is one called Newacre Properties Ltd and the company Secretary is called Nigel Gibbs.

The Companies Act 2006 Sections 43 and 44 require more than one authorised signatory to form a contract or for documents to be properly executed.

Castle

There is a company called Newacre Properties Limited, (note that "Newacre" is one word; and, its "Limited" not "LTD"), listed at Companies House with a Nigel Gibbs as Director.

However, if you look at the accounts for the year ended 31st March 2015 the signatures are different; also, the letter is not on company header paper, (an offence under the Companies Act), and has no start or end date. (Clearly this has been generated by CEL, not by the "land controller").
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00974253/filing-history

(And the photo on page 20 is from Solihull in Birmingham, apparently taken at the exact same time as those in Stone, Staffordshire, some 45 miles away!).

Coupon-mad

And (including the rogue 'wrong town' image on page 20) how come so many multiple images at the correct car park were ALL taken from different areas and angles at exactly 8.03am? Not possible, as the person taking the images would, at the very least, have taken 2 or 3 minutes to cover all that ground on foot!

It is almost as if the 'date imprinting' was added later by the person collating the photos for this evidence pack, and they forgot to adjust by a minute or two, the timings that they were seemingly overlaying.  It is known that this data can be manipulated or added later by parking firms (as another fellow ex-clamper BPA member, UKPC were caught out doing which was in the press).  There is no evidence of the actual image metadata nor who added these purported timings because (ex-Wonga failure) Scott Wilson hasn't stated that he collated these images himself.  So, out of the CEL staff, who prepared these images and why are all those image times/dates all the same? The Claimant is put to strict proof because this puts into question ALL the timings including the time on the ANPR images.  The Defendant is expecting to cross examine the Claimant at the hearing about all the issues with this evidence.

I'd say that in your WS but with careful wording!

Be aware: DON'T use the words 'fraud', 'false' or forged' which the court will not want to hear uttered (criminal offence allegations). That is a huge leap and not right for small claims hearings and if it ends up making you look bad somehow as the hearing unfolds, the other side can claim costs for YOUR unreasonable conduct!

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

And (including the rogue 'wrong town' image on page 20) how come so many multiple images at the correct car park were ALL taken from different areas and angles at exactly 8.03am? Not possible, as the person taking the images would, at the very least, have taken 2 or 3 minutes to cover all that ground on foot!

Even the image from "the wrong town" has the exact same date and time imprinted in exactly the same format and font and position on the image.

Castle

The photo on page 19 shows a customer in Subway, (right hand side), eating and a Step ladder next to the Rubbish Bin at the site entrance. On page 22, the customer has disappeared and on page 23, the Step ladder goes missing; yet, all photos were taken at the same time!

Coupon-mad

Castle said:

The photo on page 19 shows a customer in Subway, (right hand side), eating and a Step ladder next to the Rubbish Bin at the site entrance. On page 22, the customer has disappeared and on page 23, the Step ladder goes missing; yet, all photos were taken at the same time!

This must ALL be stated at the hearing.

This MUST meet the bar for unreasonable conduct!  You couldn't make it up but CEL appear to have done so and ex-Wonga barrister Scott Wilson has his head on the block because he's signed this under a statement of truth, knowing it can be a contempt of court if he is caught out... 

FernandoYoghurt

Loving your work team! but I do have questions.

@Coupon-mad,
I understand that I'm unlikely to get anything awarded but will provide some evidence just in case the judge is feeling generous. I was certainly hoping that putting me through this without the correct signs would be considered unreasonable

Regarding the images, I have image editing software so could easily put the date and time on the images. I had actually quite deliberately used the snipping tool to grab a copy of the image without any meta data to prevent any data leakage! That would appear to be all that they have done and I figure providing I use the actual date and time then I should be ok?

Spelling and duplication fixed (thanks), however given that part of my defence is that I was told I was ok and that I would not have asked that question had I suspected that I would not be, surely I need to admit to having seen the sign (which is at high level by the entrance) and would need to include that in my sequence of events.

I've added a section discussing the BPA CoP and signage evidence. I have been clear to lay out the facts in a "I have no idea how they managed to take so many photos, 45 miles apart all at exactly the same time but maybe they can explain" kinda way.

Land registry shows "Newacre Properties limited" as the land owner but I've included a section on authority given that whilst it's clear someone just got it slightly wrong, it's still wrong. Devil's in the detail... Added an additional exhibit to back that up. I have also drawn attention to the inconsistency with the date and naming schemes but stopped short of claiming that it was a fraudulent document.

As per @Fruitcake's suggestions I have included reference in the lack of authority section relating to the companies act and have provided that in the exhibits section with a relevant link.

The Beavis stuff was all in my defence so I've removed it but made reference to it in the None Compliant Signage section.

I'm a little confused about what to do with the POFA and abuse of process sections. As you rightly point out, I copied and pasted them verbatum from Aphex's document but I thought that's what I was being told to do. The POFA is in my defence so do I just need a paragraph to sum that up?

• "As per my defence I believe that the Schedule 4 of the POFA at 4(5) clearly shows that the amount being claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper and Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3),"

Still haven't done the page or paragraph numbers pending any additional changes. Still need to find an invoice to prove hourly rate.
New doc uploaded: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lUDfn-XyjrJe3dTdf5SLyRcdyyb7aHwx/view?usp=sharing