Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 22nd Feb 18, 10:14 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 1Thanks
    awhite6889
    CCJ from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
    • #1
    • 22nd Feb 18, 10:14 PM
    CCJ from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD 22nd Feb 18 at 10:14 PM
    Hi All,

    In March last year I stayed at a hotel in Bournemouth, arriving to check in at 00:38. I left at 10:21 the next morning. The hotel advertises free parking for all guests however a month later I received a PCN. The hotel uses an ANPR camera and I do not recall the hotel taking my car registration information, I assume this is why I was issued a PCN.

    I ignored the PCN and all letters from Civil Enforcement LTD and Wright Hassall solicitors. Now 11 Months later I have received a CCJ through. I have a receipt from booking.com of my stay which matches the date of the PCN, I also have the amount shown on my bank statement.

    My question is how to manage the communications with:
    1. The hotel
    2. Civil Enforcement LTD
    3. The court

    Settlement fee of £327.51!!! As I have not done anything wrong I will not be paying this but I want to make sure I go about this situation in the most efficient and effective way.

    Many thanks for your replies!
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 22nd Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • 18,376 Posts
    • 23,279 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 22nd Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • #2
    • 22nd Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    do you have an actual CCJ, issued after a court case ?

    or is it an MCOL from Northampton CCBC that you have received ?

    have you read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread ?
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 23rd Feb 18, 8:46 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    awhite6889
    • #3
    • 23rd Feb 18, 8:46 AM
    • #3
    • 23rd Feb 18, 8:46 AM
    Its an MCOL.
    Sorry can you please direct me to newbies faq sticky thread?
    Thank you!
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 23rd Feb 18, 8:51 AM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 4,619 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #4
    • 23rd Feb 18, 8:51 AM
    • #4
    • 23rd Feb 18, 8:51 AM
    Its an MCOL.
    Sorry can you please direct me to newbies faq sticky thread?
    Thank you!
    Originally posted by awhite6889
    The newbies sticky is the second one down.

    Why oh why didn't you contact the hotel straight away to get it cancelled?

    You have now given yourself a lot of extra work!

    That settlement figure is a total scam!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 23rd Feb 18, 9:21 AM
    • 7,569 Posts
    • 10,082 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:21 AM
    • #5
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:21 AM
    Hi All,

    In March last year I stayed at a hotel in Bournemouth, arriving to check in at 00:38. I left at 10:21 the next morning. The hotel advertises free parking for all guests however a month later I received a PCN. The hotel uses an ANPR camera and I do not recall the hotel taking my car registration information, I assume this is why I was issued a PCN.

    I ignored the PCN and all letters from Civil Enforcement LTD and Wright Hassall solicitors. Now 11 Months later I have received a CCJ through. I have a receipt from booking.com of my stay which matches the date of the PCN, I also have the amount shown on my bank statement.

    My question is how to manage the communications with:
    1. The hotel
    2. Civil Enforcement LTD
    3. The court

    Settlement fee of £327.51!!! As I have not done anything wrong I will not be paying this but I want to make sure I go about this situation in the most efficient and effective way.

    Many thanks for your replies!
    Originally posted by awhite6889
    Which hotel is it
    What do the signs say
    Is it very clear that you must enter a reg number

    Did CEL follow the new procedure dated 1st Oct 2017
    whereby they must send proof of their claim and give
    you 30 days to respond before action ?

    Of course you must respond to the claim and you can
    get this transfered to your local court.

    You now need to contact the CEO of the hotel as a valued
    customer to get this cancelled

    If CEL say they cannot cancel as it's going to court, they
    will be talking rubbish because it can be cancelled up to
    the very last minute.

    CEL are a nasty company, do some reading here
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=cel

    Given a good defence, CEL often discontinue
    Last edited by beamerguy; 23-02-2018 at 1:24 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,299 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    • #6
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:35 AM
    You have not got a CCJ, you have a court claim for an invoice which you have not paid. Write on TripAdvisor warning everyone what will happen if they use this hotel. I am sure that if the review is sufficiently damning as to damage the hotel's business they will either get it cancelled, or pay it themselves. In either instance, it will not endear them to their poodle.


    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    And complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    Last edited by The Deep; 23-02-2018 at 9:43 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 23rd Feb 18, 9:47 AM
    • 2,749 Posts
    • 1,634 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #7
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:47 AM
    • #7
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:47 AM
    Did CEL follow the new procedure dated 1st Oct 2018 2017 whereby they must send proof of their claim and give you 30 days to respond before action?
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    Corrected date for you, assume it was a slip of the finger!
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 23rd Feb 18, 9:51 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    awhite6889
    • #8
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:51 AM
    • #8
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:51 AM
    I know, I guess its my fault for not getting it cancelled, however a lot of things online suggest to not get in communication with the people issuing the fine. In this case CEL. I thought it would just go away...
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 23rd Feb 18, 9:52 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    awhite6889
    • #9
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:52 AM
    • #9
    • 23rd Feb 18, 9:52 AM
    Thanks everyone. I am going to call the hotel and see what they have to say. RE: CEL, should I get in contact with them?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Feb 18, 10:02 AM
    • 9,520 Posts
    • 9,299 Thanks
    The Deep
    Thanks everyone. I am going to call the hotel and see what they have to say. RE: CEL, should I get in contact with them?
    Originally posted by awhite6889
    No, no, no, no, no, what if they promise to do something and do not. What if they foib you off? They have already let you down, wrtie bad stuff on TripAdvisor as I suggested.

    Never ever conduct parking ticket business by telephone. PPCs take people to court hundreds of times a week, so write everything, judges love a paper trail.

    RE: CEL, should I get in contact with them?

    Have you not read posts 4 and 5? You need to get a grip on this.
    Last edited by The Deep; 23-02-2018 at 10:07 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 23rd Feb 18, 10:15 AM
    • 35,917 Posts
    • 20,195 Thanks
    Quentin
    Thanks everyone. I am going to call the hotel and see what they have to say. RE: CEL, should I get in contact with them?
    Originally posted by awhite6889
    Now you have a claim you must deal with it. If you do nothing with the court then after just 14 days from being served the claim your thread title will be correct!

    Spend time familiarising yourself with the court process by reading up in the Newbies FAQ as you have been advised.

    (At the same time keep on to the hotel, but too late to be now contacting the claimant!)
    Last edited by Quentin; 23-02-2018 at 7:54 PM.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 23rd Feb 18, 1:21 PM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 4,619 Thanks
    fisherjim
    I know, ....however a lot of things online suggest to not get in communication with the people issuing the fine invoice.
    Originally posted by awhite6889
    Quite right about not communicating with them by phone, but unfortunately you need to fall in line with their initial scam appeals process, and any official papers that may come.

    But the first thing you should always do especially in this type of case is to complain to the land owner.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Feb 18, 3:32 PM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,443 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    NO - fisherjim, please do NOT distract the OP like this.

    OP - you MSUT MUST MUST read the newbies thread, about court claims

    There it will tell you that you MUST go online, NOW, THIS INSTANT, and complete your AoS. Dont ask what that is, just read and do it. Write nothing whatsoever in the defence box. Absolutely nothing.

    Then you will compile your defence against CEL and get it checked AND you can then complain to the damned hotel and TELL THEM to get this cancelled, otherwise your truthful tripadvisor, facebook, twitter etc reviews will go in and they will NOT be telling people how lovely the hotel is, but how terrible the hotel is for hiring a set of scammers (spoken about in parliament only a couple of weeks ago in those terms!) to harass their guests.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 23rd Feb 18, 3:39 PM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 4,619 Thanks
    fisherjim
    NO - fisherjim, please do NOT distract the OP like this.

    OP - you MSUT MUST MUST read the newbies thread, about court claims

    There it will tell you that you MUST go online, NOW, THIS INSTANT, and complete your AoS. Dont ask what that is, just read and do it. Write nothing whatsoever in the defence box. Absolutely nothing.

    Then you will compile your defence against CEL and get it checked AND you can then complain to the damned hotel and TELL THEM to get this cancelled, otherwise your truthful tripadvisor, facebook, twitter etc reviews will go in and they will NOT be telling people how lovely the hotel is, but how terrible the hotel is for hiring a set of scammers (spoken about in parliament only a couple of weeks ago in those terms!) to harass their guests.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    How was I distracting the OP sorry, I only replied in good faith to what I believed was bad judgement on their part, early on.
    Last edited by fisherjim; 23-02-2018 at 3:42 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Feb 18, 4:13 PM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,443 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Because the "first thing".... line could suggest to them that they need to do that now - when its low down on the list.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 23rd Feb 18, 5:15 PM
    • 3,033 Posts
    • 4,619 Thanks
    fisherjim
    Because the "first thing".... line could suggest to them that they need to do that now - when its low down on the list.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I get that NOW, but if the OP had done that first thing they may not be in the position they are in now.

    Fair enough I'll get my coat!
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 23rd Feb 18, 7:53 PM
    • 35,917 Posts
    • 20,195 Thanks
    Quentin
    Fair enough I'll get my coat!
    Originally posted by fisherjim
    Oh no.

    Poor Mrs F.!!: More attention again and so soon after the last trip

    Is she aware of what's coming her way??
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 5th Mar 18, 12:01 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    awhite6889
    CEL Defence write up
    Hi All,

    Thanks for your help initially. I've now done loads of reading and written my defence:

    Summary of the case:

    1. Paid for a hotel room for the night. The hotel has free parking for its guests but uses an ANPR system and if not entered into their system you get a ticket. The keeper did not enter their car reg number into the system.
    2. Entered the hotel at 00.38 and left at 10.02. 6 days later received a PCN almost 12 months ago for £60 within 14 days and £100 within 28.
    3. Received letters from CEL and Wright hassall including a letter 30-days before county court form in accordance with pre action conduct and protocol.
    4. Have received documentation from the hotel proving the defendant stayed at the hotel on the night of the issue from their booking system.

    Please see my defence and I would very much appreciate some feedback:


    In the County Court
    Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited
    V
    XXXXXXXXXXX




    Claim Number: XXXXXXXX

    Defence


    I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

    1. The Claim Form issued on 19/02/2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Civil Enforcement Limited”.
    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
    3. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.
    4. The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
    5. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.!
    6. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to “take stock”, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

    a) ‘early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
    b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
    c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
    d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.’

    7. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.
    8. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    a) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

    b) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    c) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    9. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £327.81 for outstanding debt and damages.
    11. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.
    12. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.
    13. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    ii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    iii. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!

    i. the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    ii. the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    iii. there is / was no compliant landowner contract.
    14. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    15. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
    16. Due to the length of time, the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car over 2 years later. In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keepers can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.!
    17. The claimant lists £96 in debt recovery costs. As such agencies often work on a "no-collection, no-fee" basis, the defendant disputes the substance of such claims without receipt of an official invoice proven to be paid.
    18. The claimant lists administrative costs of £40, which is not only unsubstantiated, but should not be claimable as such costs will be part of normal duties.
    19. The defendant disputes the infallibility of ANPR technology, and the data quoted, which does not definitively prove that any contravention has taken place.
    20. The claimant has failed to supply proof that they have standing in this case, and expects the defendant to trust in their "say-so" within the Particulars of Claim.
    21. The claimant has failed to prove that signage existed at the location on the date in question, and that any so-called "contract" was verbatim to their claim, which can otherwise be deemed speculative.
    22. The terms and conditions of the landowner state that free parking is available to anyone who has paid for a room at the hotel on the date in question
    23. The defendant denies agreeing to or being aware of any contract or pricing structure set by the claimant.
    24. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th Mar 18, 12:15 PM
    • 36,819 Posts
    • 83,309 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Have you done the AoS and said you are going to defend? If not, your efforts above are useless.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • awhite6889
    • By awhite6889 5th Mar 18, 12:17 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    awhite6889
    Yes I have, thanks.

    Should have noted this.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

61Posts Today

2,803Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin