Civil Enforcement - PCN after buying ticket

Johnersh

Since the MSCP terms envisage the reader walking to the entrance of the car park to read the additional terms, it's not unforeseeable that the o/p and others may then choose to pay at the nearest terminal, which is probably outside.

It's also unclear why the same company needs to have separate site codes within the same retail site. 

The limit of recovery for the claimant is surely a keying error admin fee. They're not out of pocket as the tariff is the same. This is a scenario where "no pecuniary loss" is a runner, since this is not a free car park. 

1505grandad

Also, as the appeal is keeper/driver should non PoFA compliance be used  -  or is the CEL ntk compliant?

Assuming driver id not stated in appeal to CEL which included the ticket.?

Just checking  -  are you using/quoting BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020? 

donutty22

Coupon-mad said:

Looks fine to me.

You could make it clear in the intro that this is a multi storey car park operated by CEL and they seem to have different signs on the (two? more?) different storeys but there is no warning of this, so a driver looking for the nearest pay and display machine as they walk down the ramps on foot, is immediately set up to fall, if they pay at the 'wrong' machine.  Even when paying the right amount for the right car, which the driver did.

Thanks, I will add this in.

donutty22

Johnersh said:

Since the MSCP terms envisage the reader walking to the entrance of the car park to read the additional terms, it's not unforeseeable that the o/p and others may then choose to pay at the nearest terminal, which is probably outside.

It's also unclear why the same company needs to have separate site codes within the same retail site. 

The limit of recovery for the claimant is surely a keying error admin fee. They're not out of pocket as the tariff is the same. This is a scenario where "no pecuniary loss" is a runner, since this is not a free car park. 

Should I add this or something similar?

donutty22

1505grandad said:

Also, as the appeal is keeper/driver should non PoFA compliance be used  -  or is the CEL ntk compliant?

Assuming driver id not stated in appeal to CEL which included the ticket.?

Just checking  -  are you using/quoting BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020? 

I think it is. It mentions this on the back left (I will attach a pic).

The appeal was sent as the keeper.

I'm not sure, I can't even find the original post as I have about 100 tabs open for this. Is there a more up to date version or is this one still ok?

donutty22

I think this is compliant?

iancowley

I'm not advising you to do this. But what I'd do is.....ignore it. That's just me though. If you were banged to rights I'd probably say pay it and move on. But you have a decent case.

You have all the evidence to back yourself up, they have ignored your appeals even though they seem quite sound. If they want to take this to court, let them take it to court, and waste their own money. 

They sound like the usual goons who use shady tactics and scare tactics to get people to part with their money. Even the name "Civil Enforcement" is intentionally scary.

You'll get a few letters in a row demanding money and threatening to take you to court. Each letter you recieve, the font for "WE WILL TAKE YOU TO COURT" will get bigger and bigger, the colour of the words a brighter RED each time. They will probably mention a groundbreaking case years ago where they took somebody to court and won! Hurrah for them!  They won't mention all the pushback these companies have gotten over their shady business practices. 

Then eventually the letters will stop.

You've made your appeal, and that should be the last contact. Don't let them build a case against you with further discourse. Make your one time appeal, make sure it's good, and then go radio silence. Let them prove why your appeal is incorrect, and why you should pay. They never do. They just reject.

I made that mistake when I went back and forth, and finally told them "I'll see you in court then" after they rejected my appeals without any good answers back. Although, it wasn't really a mistake, as nothing happened. The scary letters stopped after a couple more, and it fizzled out.

I had a pretty decent case where I stayed overlong at a retail park with a B&M, McDonalds, and a few other stores. The signs were tiny, off to the edges, unless I walked up to them, got on a ladder, squinted into a microscope you wouldn't know there was a time limit for customers. I didn't even go back after the fact to read the small print. Didn't bother.

I was a patron at McDonalds at a kids birthday party, went into B&M to pick up some stuff, and back again to McDonalds to buy a cup of tea as it was a long drive back home. I paid cash and card in each, but didn't keep the receipts for the cash spends.

So I was spending money the whole time, and using the stores during the stay. There shouldn't be a time limit on how long McDonalds accepts me to be a patron. I'm sure if it went to court McDonalds wouldn't be too pleased the car park company was trying to make me leave their premises, and stop spending money.

They just ignored my appeal and declared I MUST PAY!

I didn't, nothing happened.

Fruitcake

donutty22 said:

Johnersh said:

Since the MSCP terms envisage the reader walking to the entrance of the car park to read the additional terms, it's not unforeseeable that the o/p and others may then choose to pay at the nearest terminal, which is probably outside.

It's also unclear why the same company needs to have separate site codes within the same retail site. 

The limit of recovery for the claimant is surely a keying error admin fee. They're not out of pocket as the tariff is the same. This is a scenario where "no pecuniary loss" is a runner, since this is not a free car park. 

Should I add this or something similar?

Quite simply, yes.

The NTK looks PoFA compliant to me, as long as it arrived within the required timescales.

Fruitcake

iancowley said:

I didn't, nothing happened.

If this was in England and Wales within the last six years, then they could still start a court claim.

Winning at PoPLA will prevent that.

Umkomaas

I'm not advising you to do this. But what I'd do is.....ignore it.

If CEL are ignored, they will sue. 'Ignorers' are a target market as they are likely to ignore everything they receive from them, including court claim documents, which will result in a CCJ and a legally binding costs order against the 'ignorer'. That's when their real troubles start!  Kill this off at the earliest pass.