CEL PCN Claimform - Tenerife Buildings, Station Road, South Gosforth, Newcastle NE3 1QD *** Claim Discontinued***

[lookinforinfo]

I have no idea what Maximum Parking Terms Apply actually means. Probably meant as a threat.

And don't worry about ZZZZZZZ despite their assurance that they are a  professional debt collection agency no one will  believe them despite the number of times they may try to convince. The truth is they are unregulated shysters with illusions of grandeur. They believe they are Judge, Jury and executioner without a shred of evidence except the word of CEL since they appear to think you owe money. There is no debt, there is no £170 owed though there may be Illegal Collections involved.

[lookinforinfo]

I am bound to say that their alleged contract is probably the weirdest I have seen.

Considering it is supposed to be a serious legal contract to set out the conditions under which CEL manage the parking on land that does not belong to them it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

For a start it does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice which is

 

7.3

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

 

So no mention of hours:

no mention of types of vehicle restrictions:

no mention of who is responsible for the erection and maintenance of signage

 

and much more serious

-no mention that CEL have to comply with the BPA Code of conduct-that one is listed on 7.1. 

 

All it states is that the operator can pursue outstanding PCNs in accordance with the COP but that is not the same as saying that CEL will abide by the CoP which it must say.

 

Also AFAIK the only entity that can pursue for trespass is the land owner regardless of what this quasi agreement says.

There is also no mention of the financial aspect of the arrangement nor how the long it lasts and what notice is required for either side to terminate.  

 

It might be worth writing [not emailing ] to Medburn Estates asking them to confirm if this is the only agreement with CEL and whether they think it right that CEL have not received planning permission for their signs from the Council rendering their signs illegal which is more serious than unlawful and therefore all PCNs issued are worthless and should not have been issued as it is impossible to form a contract with motorists when the signs are illegal.

 

Also that as CEL are their agents Medburn Estates LTD are responsible for the actions of their agents.

You could also ask them to cofirm that the signature on the paper is that of their Director, Anthony Brown and whether their copy has a counter signature of a CEL representative.

 

Carry on that CEL are taking you to Court and as another Judge has asked a Landowner to appear in front of him to explain their contract, whether it might be in the best interest of Medway to have a serious conversation with CEL to avoid any possible  embarrassments in your  [ie Laluna] Court appearance.

 

I have not looked much at your WS though it is looking good.

 

I would have mentioned that as they failed to comply with

 Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

 

that they are in breach of their agreement CoP with BPA to keep to all the legal requirements in running their parking  operations.

 

It calls into question their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA.

 

I would wait for their WS to arrive so that you can pick holes in that too.

however watch that if they are late that you send yours off just within the Court guidelines.

 

What you are tying to do with your WS is to put your side of the case plus put CEL in as bad a light as possible for them to  decide that they don't really want to go to Court after all.

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry I didn't realise your WS was due so soon.

But yes do add the comments about the "contract" which does not comply with thr BPA Code of Practice etc etc.

as that piece of paper has not been signed by both parties then there can be no contract between CEL and the motorist.

 

you may have to allude to OPS v Ms W where Judge Harvey lays down what a proper contract should be for the benefit of your Judge.

[lookinforinfo]

Well done Laluna. You did an excellent job on your WS so I am not surprised that CEL caved in. You left them without a leg to stand on.