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
    • JayEFC
    • By JayEFC 11th Apr 18, 12:01 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 5Thanks
    JayEFC
    CE Ltd - PCN - Success!
    • #1
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:01 PM
    CE Ltd - PCN - Success! 11th Apr 18 at 12:01 PM
    First time I used this forum was a couple of weeks ago when I had received a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd (Liverpool). I did not subscribe but rather read the threads which were really helpful. So much so that the first letter I sent to the company was successful and little over a week later I received a letter confirming cancellation.

    I can't seem to attach a copy of the original letter(s) but the wording for my letter was as follows (taken from another thread):

    [I]Re: PCN No. @@@@@@@@@@

    I am writing to appeal the above PCN sent to me as the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement.

    As you do not appear to have identified the driver at the time of the alleged infringement, it is assumed that your company intends to rely on the keeper liability provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

    Schedule 4 Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the PoFA stipulate the mandatory information that must be included in a Notice to Keeper (NTK), in order for it to be valid. Amongst many other requirements, it stipulates that the NTK must:

    !!!61607; Advise that the driver is responsible for the parking charge and the amount, and that it has not been paid in full.

    Unfortunately, your company has failed to provide the above information on the NTK and therefore it fails to meet the requirements of Paragraph 6 Schedule 4 of the PoFA in establishing keeper liability.

    It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.

    As you have failed to establish keeper liability under the PoFA, I will not be making any payment in respect of this PCN. Your alleged contract is with the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged infringement, and I am afraid that I am unable to assist you with identifying the driver on the specified date and time.

    Please ensure that your reply includes a notice of cancellation of the above PCN.

    Yours sincerely,[/I]

    I received a notice of cancellation from CE Ltd about a week later!

    I hope this helps someone like it did me!
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Apr 18, 12:04 PM
    • 10,022 Posts
    • 9,865 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:04 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:04 PM
    Well done, now make life worse for them.


    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    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 they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 11th Apr 18, 12:06 PM
    • 1,905 Posts
    • 2,583 Thanks
    Castle
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:06 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:06 PM
    It is acknowledged that your company provided the required information on the payment slip enclosed with your NTK, however, the High Court ruled in the case of Barnet Council v The Parking Adjudicator 2006 EWHC 2357 that the payment slip constitutes a separate document to the notice to owner. This decision is binding on all lower courts and ombudsman services, including the County Court and POPLA.
    Originally posted by JayEFC
    Ombudsman services, including POPLA will disagree with that; they can choice to ignore the law if they want to.
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

1,907Posts Today

8,186Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thanks so much to all who watched @itvMLshow LIVE last night. The ratings are in at 2.4m and 12% share, lower tha? https://t.co/Jj62j1fV5F

  • RT @stomp_3k: Oh @MartinSLewis would be proud proud of me went sim free on my mobile contract renewal and bought my handset outright saving?

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: Wales Govt steps up to help ?severely mentally impaired? access crucial council tax discount after MSE campaign - BUT M?

  • Follow Martin