Civil Enforcement Ltd - Disabled Badge

fleetingmind

My wife took a disabled friend and her daughter to a local park in Swanley. The friend advised that as she has a blue badge she didn't have to pay for parking in car parks. (We know now we need to check). 

A few weeks later we get a parking fine from Civil Enforcement Ltd with fine for £100 or £60 if it's paid sooner.

My wife appealed with picture of disabled badge but the appeal was rejected as disabled badges apparently still have to pay. 

I was Wondering if we can ignore all letters and this goes away like a lot of fines like this used to. e.g for spending too long shipping in a shopping car park. 

The car park is owned by Swanley council and I was surprised it wasn't free for the disabled. 

Any advice would be appreciated as I really can't afford to pay this 👍

Coupon-mad

Yes you can ignore it now, as long as you don't ignore a court Claim Form.  And don't move house without telling CE, obviously.

Unless this is in Scotland, you CAN'T just ignore PCNs for overstaying shopping. Things have changed in private parking but you've not ignored this one.

You appealed it. NOW IGNORE IT.  But come back if you get a Claim Form.

fleetingmind

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you can ignore it now, as long as you don't ignore a court Claim Form.  And don't move house without telling CE, obviously.

Unless this is in Scotland, you CAN'T just ignore PCNs for overstaying shopping. Things have changed in private parking but you've not ignored this one.

You appealed it. NOW IGNORE IT.  But come back if you get a Claim Form.

Thank you. 

It was in England and a council car park and I'm  surprised they use companies like this. 

Mistake was not paying for the parking assuming they didn't have to as had a disabled badge. 

The fine included photos of car. We appealed online. 

Is it worth asking for a photo of the signage?
Is it worth emailing the council to see if it's legit e.g council using this type of company, threats of refusal of property etc

What usually happens - more letters then a debt collectors type one?
Do they often go to court?

Coupon-mad

There's no fine.

Swanley Council do use CEL in the Country Park. But you can certainly email the Council to complain about this predatory ANPR scam and to say you think it's a trap.

You know what happens from reading the 4th then 2nd posts of the NEWBIES thread. Yes CEL sue people but I'm not sure I've seen a Swanley court claim.  I wonder if they don't have authority to litigate.

Either way try a complaint but ignore the £170 demands and don't show them here (please!).

fleetingmind

So I emailed the council, after all it was a oversight. Even offered to pay the daily charge. 

Their reply was:
"Unfortunately, as the ticket was correctly issued, there is nothing we can do to cancel it.

The charge you have been given is decided by civil enforcement and is not made by us."

Disgusting that the first action is always a hugely inflated fine. Why not "you forgot to pay please pay the correct money online". 

Coupon-mad

Reply and say:


Dear Sirs,

What exactly do you mean by "The charge you have been given is decided by civil enforcement and is not made by us."?

Unable to? You are powerless and have ceded all decisions to your agents, including suing disabled people? Seriously?

Questions:

A. Are you saying that CE (your agents) decided the tariff levels and they set the £100 fake penalty and not Swanley Council?

B. Are you also saying that the ill-researched contract that someone blindly signed with this ex-clamper firm DOESN'T give you (the Council) the right to cancel any charges?

C.  Not even as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010? Are you sure? CE are only your agents and under the law of agency, you are responsible for their conduct. Including unfair treatment of disabled people (treating everyone the same is not a justification for disability discrimination/unfair treatment and harassment by your agents, by the way, before you try that one).

I suggest you seek legal advice on this if you are unsure of your position.

As well as your answers to the above on behalf of the Council (and not written by CE, please do not insult me with passing the buck to that lot) I now require 5 things and you must consider this a FOI request:

1.  a copy of the contract you have with CE.  Sensitive information is not a valid excuse to withhold it and the decision is not CE's, it's yours. I will accept a copy with names, email addresses and the amount of any money changing hands to be redacted (nothing else).

2. I also want to see the minutes of meetings and any other communications or information held that led to the decision to use this appallingly notorious firm. And all reviews or updates since.

3.  How many complaints have you AND CE received? Dates/basic details of complaint please. Were any about the decision to charge disabled people? How were they resolved?

4.  I want a copy of the disability risk assessment that Swanley Council carried out to avoid disadvantaging disabled persons who would reasonably understand Council-owned car parks to be free.

If you didn't conduct a disability risk assessment before allowing a third party ANPR aggressive 'contract law' litigation model, why not? There was clearly a decision to be made regarding how ANPR blanket rules would adversely affect disabled patrons, as Malling & Tonbridge Council just discovered after an outcry:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/amp/council-u-turn-on-blue-badge-holders-parking-charges-312615/

5.  I require your explanation as to the legal basis that allows you to treat this public car park 'as if it was private land' (contrary to the letter sent to all Local Authorities by Robert Goodwill MP telling you in 2014 that you are not allowed to do this) and the legal basis for using  (allowing your agents to use) ANPR for PCN enforcement, which is expressly banned on Council-owned publicly-available parking spaces, under the Deregulation Act 2015.

You may be interested to note that High Wycombe Council wasted £680,000 on ANPR cameras for their car parks before they were forced to remove the cameras after their access to DVLA data was removed.
https://wycombetoday.com/2017-01-22-car-parks-in-wycombe-to-return-to-pay-and-display-as-anpr-technology-is-ditched/

Using a third party ex-clamper doesn't exempt you from the Deregulation Act ANPR ban.

So what does, in the Council's view?

I am sending details of my complaint to the local press who I am sure will be interested.

As with any FOI request I expect a reply within 20 working days:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/time-limits-for-compliance-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-section-10/#:~:text=Section%2010%20specifies%20that%20you,the%20request%20has%20been%20received.

I will complain to the ICO if your response is unreasonably delayed or unsatisfactory.  And I will report you to the DVLA and MHCLG if it seems you are allowing CE to obtain DVLA data unlawfully or without reasonable cause.

Yours faithfully,

fleetingmind

Coupon-mad said:

Reply and say:


Dear Sirs,

What exactly do you mean by "The charge you have been given is decided by civil enforcement and is not made by us."?

Unable to? You are powerless and have ceded all decisions to your agents, including suing disabled people? Seriously?

Questions:

A. Are you saying that CE (your agents) decided the tariff levels and they set the £100 fake penalty and not Swanley Council?

B. Are you also saying that the ill-researched contract that someone blindly signed with this ex-clamper firm DOESN'T give you (the Council) the right to cancel any charges?

C.  Not even as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010? Are you sure? CE are only your agents and under the law of agency, you are responsible for their conduct. Including unfair treatment of disabled people (treating everyone the same is not a justification for disability discrimination/unfair treatment and harassment by your agents, by the way, before you try that one).

I suggest you seek legal advice on this if you are unsure of your position.

As well as your answers to the above on behalf of the Council (and not written by CE, please do not insult me with passing the buck to that lot) I now require 5 things and you must consider this a FOI request:

1.  a copy of the contract you have with CE.  Sensitive information is not a valid excuse to withhold it and the decision is not CE's, it's yours. I will accept a copy with names, email addresses and the amount of any money changing hands to be redacted (nothing else).

2. I also want to see the minutes of meetings and any other communications or information held that led to the decision to use this appallingly notorious firm. And all reviews or updates since.

3.  How many complaints have you AND CE received? Dates/basic details of complaint please. Were any about the decision to charge disabled people? How were they resolved?

4.  I want a copy of the disability risk assessment that Swanley Council carried out to avoid disadvantaging disabled persons who would reasonably understand Council-owned car parks to be free.

If you didn't conduct a disability risk assessment before allowing a third party ANPR aggressive 'contract law' litigation model, why not? There was clearly a decision to be made regarding how ANPR blanket rules would adversely affect disabled patrons, as Malling & Tonbridge Council just discovered after an outcry:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/amp/council-u-turn-on-blue-badge-holders-parking-charges-312615/

5.  I require your explanation as to the legal basis that allows you to treat this public car park 'as if it was private land' (contrary to the letter sent to all Local Authorities by Robert Goodwill MP telling you in 2014 that you are not allowed to do this) and the legal basis for using  (allowing your agents to use) ANPR for PCN enforcement, which is expressly banned on Council-owned publicly-available parking spaces, under the Deregulation Act 2015.

You may be interested to note that High Wycombe Council wasted £680,000 on ANPR cameras for their car parks before they were forced to remove the cameras after their access to DVLA data was removed.
https://wycombetoday.com/2017-01-22-car-parks-in-wycombe-to-return-to-pay-and-display-as-anpr-technology-is-ditched/

Using a third party ex-clamper doesn't exempt you from the Deregulation Act ANPR ban.

So what does, in the Council's view?

I am sending details of my complaint to the local press who I am sure will be interested.

As with any FOI request I expect a reply within 20 working days:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/time-limits-for-compliance-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-section-10/#:~:text=Section%2010%20specifies%20that%20you,the%20request%20has%20been%20received.

I will complain to the ICO if your response is unreasonably delayed or unsatisfactory.  And I will report you to the DVLA and MHCLG if it seems you are allowing CE to obtain DVLA data unlawfully or without reasonable cause.

Yours faithfully,

This is brilliant. Thank you. Going to send and see how they reply. 

fleetingmind

fleetingmind said:

Coupon-mad said:

Reply and say:


Dear Sirs,

What exactly do you mean by "The charge you have been given is decided by civil enforcement and is not made by us."?

Unable to? You are powerless and have ceded all decisions to your agents, including suing disabled people? Seriously?

Questions:

A. Are you saying that CE (your agents) decided the tariff levels and they set the £100 fake penalty and not Swanley Council?

B. Are you also saying that the ill-researched contract that someone blindly signed with this ex-clamper firm DOESN'T give you (the Council) the right to cancel any charges?

C.  Not even as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010? Are you sure? CE are only your agents and under the law of agency, you are responsible for their conduct. Including unfair treatment of disabled people (treating everyone the same is not a justification for disability discrimination/unfair treatment and harassment by your agents, by the way, before you try that one).

I suggest you seek legal advice on this if you are unsure of your position.

As well as your answers to the above on behalf of the Council (and not written by CE, please do not insult me with passing the buck to that lot) I now require 5 things and you must consider this a FOI request:

1.  a copy of the contract you have with CE.  Sensitive information is not a valid excuse to withhold it and the decision is not CE's, it's yours. I will accept a copy with names, email addresses and the amount of any money changing hands to be redacted (nothing else).

2. I also want to see the minutes of meetings and any other communications or information held that led to the decision to use this appallingly notorious firm. And all reviews or updates since.

3.  How many complaints have you AND CE received? Dates/basic details of complaint please. Were any about the decision to charge disabled people? How were they resolved?

4.  I want a copy of the disability risk assessment that Swanley Council carried out to avoid disadvantaging disabled persons who would reasonably understand Council-owned car parks to be free.

If you didn't conduct a disability risk assessment before allowing a third party ANPR aggressive 'contract law' litigation model, why not? There was clearly a decision to be made regarding how ANPR blanket rules would adversely affect disabled patrons, as Malling & Tonbridge Council just discovered after an outcry:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/amp/council-u-turn-on-blue-badge-holders-parking-charges-312615/

5.  I require your explanation as to the legal basis that allows you to treat this public car park 'as if it was private land' (contrary to the letter sent to all Local Authorities by Robert Goodwill MP telling you in 2014 that you are not allowed to do this) and the legal basis for using  (allowing your agents to use) ANPR for PCN enforcement, which is expressly banned on Council-owned publicly-available parking spaces, under the Deregulation Act 2015.

You may be interested to note that High Wycombe Council wasted £680,000 on ANPR cameras for their car parks before they were forced to remove the cameras after their access to DVLA data was removed.
https://wycombetoday.com/2017-01-22-car-parks-in-wycombe-to-return-to-pay-and-display-as-anpr-technology-is-ditched/

Using a third party ex-clamper doesn't exempt you from the Deregulation Act ANPR ban.

So what does, in the Council's view?

I am sending details of my complaint to the local press who I am sure will be interested.

As with any FOI request I expect a reply within 20 working days:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/time-limits-for-compliance-under-the-freedom-of-information-act-section-10/#:~:text=Section%2010%20specifies%20that%20you,the%20request%20has%20been%20received.

I will complain to the ICO if your response is unreasonably delayed or unsatisfactory.  And I will report you to the DVLA and MHCLG if it seems you are allowing CE to obtain DVLA data unlawfully or without reasonable cause.

Yours faithfully,

This is brilliant. Thank you. Going to send and see how they reply. 

On reading the PCN notice from CE it says you can complain to them and if unsuccessful you can then take your appeal to POPLA. But surely a council car park is not private land so how can you have an appeal process that won't work from the outset. 

Then on the letter that refused my appeal they also say:
"By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute

resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal (www.ombudsman-services.org/).

However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. Should you

wish to appeal further you must do so to POPLA, as explained above."

Their park website also confirms they use ANPR cameras. Just want them to confirm in writing it's definitely council car park. 
https://www.swanleypark.co.uk/parking-charges/

I emailed the council last week and followed up yesterday. Just had a email saying "We are just awaiting to hear back from Civil Enforcement and we will get back to you as soon as possible."
My original email was asking for correct person at the council to direct my complaint and FOI request to. So not sure why they have contacted CE and waiting for that reply. I'll play it out and see what CE say first. Hoping the council aren't trying wash their hands of this. 

KeithP

Did you send that response that @Coupon-mad wrote for you a week ago?

fleetingmind

KeithP said:

Did you send that response that @Coupon-mad wrote for you a week ago?

No, not yet. I want the contact details for the correct person before I send as it will get lost otherwise. 

I did mention some of the brief points. 

fleetingmind

Just had a reply from the council. I was very shocked that the council doesn't recive any money from the fines. (some of my orrignal wording has been removed in the reply from the council)

Are the council saying that CE (your agents) decided the tariff levels and they set the £60 then £100 penalties and not Swanley Council? 

(Answer). STC have an agreement for managing the car park with Creative Car Parks (CCP), they are responsible for using their agents at CE to enforce fines for those who do not adhere to the terms and conditions. The tariffs are set by CCP, and the Town Council does not receive any money from fines generated.

 Are the council also saying that your contract with this firm DOESN'T give you (the Council) the right to cancel any charges? 

(Answer). The Town Council can cancel a maximum of ten fines each month between both car parks at Swanley Park. These are designed to rectify errors staff may have made inputting a contractor, staff member or other users’ registration plate into the system. We have tablets onsite for this very purpose, but human error can obviously occur and thus we need the mechanism.

 Can you please advise how this is a fair and legal appeal process? (in reply to : "After receiving the PCN from CE we appealed, and the appeal was unsuccessful. CE then advises that you can appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA). As this car park is council owned and therefore public land you therefore can’t actually appeal to POPLA as they only deal with PCN’s on private land.
Then right at the bottom they then advise: "By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal (www.ombudsman-services.org/). However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. Should you wish to appeal further you must do so to POPLA, as explained above." So, the first appeal is to the agents that benefit financially from the PCN’s, second appeal is to POPLA who don’t deal with PCN’s on private land then it mentions (because they have to) a third appeal to the Ombudsman which they say they don’t participate in their resolution service and you need to go to POPLA which again can’t deal with these PCN’s. Can you please advise how this is a fair and legal appeal process?" 

(Answer). To our knowledge POPLA will investigate and have in the past investigated numerous PCNs at the Park. If they have told you that they no longer can then please do send me over this written evidence to investigate further.

 

D. What is the legal basis that allows you to treat this public car park 'as if it was private land' (contrary to the letter sent to all Local Authorities by Robert Goodwill MP telling local authorities in 2014 that you are not allowed to do this) and the legal basis for using  (allowing your agents to use) ANPR for PCN enforcement, which is expressly banned on Council-owned publicly-available parking spaces, under the Deregulation Act 2015?

(Using a third-party agent shouldn’t exempt you from the Deregulation Act ANPR ban.) 

(Answer). The car park in question is not provided on the basis of any order issued pursuant to The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) or the Traffic Management Act (TMA).

 

Therefore, the land is not a highway maintainable at public expense, is not a ‘parking place’ within the meaning of s.32(4)(b) of the RTRA, and is not subject to any form of statutory control.

 

This means that the land is not excluded from the definition of relevant land under p.3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and breaches can be enforced using that legislation.

 

Whilst the Government has issued guidance to local authorities indicating that its opinion was that it was unlawful for local authorities to use CCTV/ANPR in public car parks, controlled under RTRA orders and informed them that DVLA would not supply information in those circumstances, some local authorities have openly challenged this position and there are those which claim to have legal opinion to the contrary.

 

We have also been made aware of legal advice given to the British Parking Association which suggest that car parks falling into this category can be managed and enforced using ANPR. A position to the contrary would be akin to a council having a car park at premises that it rents or owns and not being able to monitor use of that car park using ANPR.

 

The issue of whether this government guidance also applies to car parks owned by local authorities but which are not ‘public’ and do not have RTRA orders attached to them is even more unclear and it is even more unlikely to apply, given that the guidance only relates to ‘public’ car parks designated as such under relevant RTRA Orders.

 

The BPA guidance clearly states that local authorities can provide services at/control ‘private land’ (including car parks) and it therefore follows that these can be managed by approved operators under the private scheme, which would include using ANPR systems to manage the car park.

 

E. Can you please provide a copy of the disability risk assessment that Swanley Council carried out to avoid disadvantaging disabled persons who would reasonably understand Council-owned car parks to be free. If you didn't conduct a disability risk assessment before allowing a third party ANPR aggressive 'contract law' litigation model, why not? There was clearly a decision to be made regarding how ANPR blanket rules would adversely affect disabled patrons, as Malling & Tonbridge Council just discovered after an outcry:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/amp/council-u-turn-on-blue-badge-holders-parking-charges-312615/

 

(Answer). The Town Council worked with a local disabled user group to help form the Park’s user risk assessments, although we do not have a specific parking disabled user risk assessment. Their input also helped us make improvements to paths and facilities. Over the past few years, we have introduced a disabled friendly changing places facility, sloped pool, disabled user playground equipment and improvements to paths. All these have been paid for through the parking charges paid by non-resident disabled and other users. We did not consider the car park a barrier to entry to any non-resident. Swanley residents, including those disabled get free parking as Swanley Council Taxpayers. Non-residents who do not pay their Council Tax to Swanley are expected to pay the small charge.

 

F. Can you please provide a copy of the contract you have with CE.  Sensitive information is not a valid excuse to withhold it and the decision is not CE's, it's yours. I will accept a copy with names, email addresses to be redacted (nothing else).

 

(Answer). As aforementioned the Town Council do not hold the agreement directly with CE. The agreement is with CCP.

 

G. Can you please provide the minutes of meetings, and any other communications or information held that led to the decision to use this firm. And all reviews or updates since.

 

(Answer). All minutes relating to our contracts are under the public and press exclusion under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972. Since being agreed we have held numerous meetings with CCP to improve the systems. Whilst these meetings were held without minutes, I can tell you that they led to a review after we proposed to end the agreement due to poor reviews on the payment application. To keep the agreement in place they actioned change and brought in Your Parking Space so our car park users could use their payment platform which has 4.7 star reviews on the Apple Store.

H. How many complaints have you AND CE received? Were any about the decision to charge disabled people and how were they resolved?

 

(Answer). We have not received any complaints in the past twelve months. Due to GDPR we do not store these longer than this period. We do not have access to CE’s complaints.

 

As this is your first offence and we do not wish to deter you from future visits, I have spoken to CCP, and as a gesture of good will they are going to cancel your PCN.