Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)

[firstwithit]

Personally I wouldnt bother to waste a stamp on them and as for Debt Collection cos trying to do their collecting, on what basis are they working other than a percentage???

What have they got as proof that would stand up anywhere, nothing!!!

[Charlie23]

They've got cameras at the entrance and ext of the car park, in clear view, with footage of me entering and then leaving again 2 hours 16 miuntes later!

 

I see your point about not replying if i'm no going to pay - but I think i will reply anyway, just so if it did go any further in future at least I could demostrate that I've fought my corner.

[battyboomboom]

Erm, how does a pic of your car entering and exit a) prove that you parked there, and b) prove a contract exists?

 

If you reply you go up in their "reply-to" list - to quote Bama - they will see you as "a hooked fish" and try and play you. Don't bother replying except to the DCA letters.

[Charlie23]

I came onto this site for some constructive advise. Not to be patronised.

 

But thanks all the same.

[TideTurner]

They've got cameras at the entrance and ext of the car park, in clear view, with footage of me entering and then leaving again 2 hours 16 miuntes later!

 

I see your point about not replying if i'm no going to pay - but I think i will reply anyway, just so if it did go any further in future at least I could demostrate that I've fought my corner.

 

What Cameras? Who are they manned by? How accurate are they? Are they Time Synched? Can they provide any evidence (video or other) to prove a contract was in place? Have you seen the footage? They're talking hydraulics, and the onus is upon them to prove their position, not for you to defend yours.

 

Have the cameras been calibrated? By Who? When? What training did the Calibrator have? For how long? Is he qualified?

 

Get them to supply a copy of the footage.

 

Tide

[Forever Forest]

Hi everyone, my first post on here.

 

My letter from these clowns dropped through the door yesterday. I parked at a Co-op (the car park isn't owned by them though ??) and have been 'fined' £90 or £45 if I'm a good little boy (Which I'm not). I am going to follow the advice on here and certainly am not going to lose any sleep over these idiots.

 

Incidently, being a Nottingham person, I know exactly where these lovely people are based. I must say (probably not advisable I know) that I am half tempted to drive down to their little rented office and have a chat to them (In a professional manner of course!! )

 

Anyway, as for now I have much more important things to worry about.....like Forest getting promoted !!

[Gaou1]

I haven't posted on here for a while, but used to quite a bit in regards to bank charges etc.

However, back to the point

 

I received a Parking Contravention Enforcement Notice from CIL in the post today. The offence is the vehicle breached the limited free stay allowence at Maccy D's , Gatwick on 24th Nov 07 ( from 14:58:00 to 16:17:00 ). Fine is £125 or £75 if paid within 14 days.

 

The interesting point about this one, is that at 11.00am that morning, i actually sold the car in question. So the chances are that the offence took place, but even though my name was down as being ' the keeper of the vehicle ' ( makes it sound like something out of Lord of the Rings ), i was no longer the owner.

I also sent all the relevant paperwork to DVLA that day.

What should be fun for them is that the person i sold it to was from Portugal, and the car was being driven back there ... and it arrived on Tuesday 27th Nov.

 

I'm going to be writing them a letter and getting it sent registered so i know it gets there, on Monday, and we'll see what happens.

 

 

Daz

[feralcat2]

Hi Charlie 23, having read your posting, the letter you recieved is the commonal garden variety for CEL. All consecutive letters ar just rehashed versions of the same.

Firstly, don't panic and don't phone them, your wasting your time and money. You also say that they have photos of you entering and leaving the site.

The first plank in your defence is to ask them for this photografic data. (all of it) Under the DVLA Code of Practice at Section 3.5 they are required to supply you all revelant data on the vehicle, including photographic details if available.(there should be no charge, but that is a different arguement relevant to data protection)

 

Secondly, under Section 3.2 (of the above code of practice), A notice of the parking contravention should have been placed on the offending vehicle. CEL have agreed to abide by this Code of Practice with the DVLA.

If they have not provided you with a violation notice or phographic data, write to them telling them they are in breach of the DVLA Code and that the letters and actions amount to Psychological Harassment which is considered by the Office of Fair Trading 'as unfair trading practices' at 2.5 & 2.6h of the OFT Code of Conduct.

 

Also add, that you deny a contractual relationship exists with his client nor does any deed exist to show any contractual alliance with his client. Lastly, in your letter be 'icily polite' and don't give them your phone number, it saves hassle down the line.... hope this little posting helps.

[TideTurner]

I purposely visited the car park yesterday to examine the parking signs of any restrictions, which can only be read if you stand right in front of them...

 

Hate to muddy the waters here, but is it not discriminatory to put up a sign which is not visible to EVERYONE. The Highway Code requires that you can read a number plate at 20 metres.

 

'The distance requirement for the old-style number plate is 20.5 metres. The distance requirement for the eyesight test with the new-style number plate is 20 metres. New-style number plates were introduced on 1 September 2001 and are easily identifiable because they start with two letters ie AB51 ABC'.

 

Depending on the font size, many could struggle reading small signs, which is clear discrimination whatever their intentions (to keep it out of sight).

 

Any discrimination or Health and Safety buffs on the site? At the very least they would need to consult one of their solicitors, as this would throw an accusation back at them.

 

Tide

[battyboomboom]

Hate to muddy the waters here, but is it not discriminatory to put up a sign which is not visible to EVERYONE. The Highway Code requires that you can read a number plate at 20 metres.

 

'The distance requirement for the old-style number plate is 20.5 metres. The distance requirement for the eyesight test with the new-style number plate is 20 metres. New-style number plates were introduced on 1 September 2001 and are easily identifiable because they start with two letters ie AB51 ABC'.

 

Depending on the font size, many could struggle reading small signs, which is clear discrimination whatever their intentions (to keep it out of sight).

 

Any discrimination or Health and Safety buffs on the site? At the very least they would need to consult one of their solicitors, as this would throw an accusation back at them.

 

Tide

 

This is about forming a contract, which means reading the sign fully rather than a quick readout of a number plate.

[Sidewinder]

Just as a matter of interest, as I happened to be at Gatwick today, I had a look at both McDonald's and the BP garages.

 

Notwithstanding the unenforceability, there are indeed plenty of signs up at both locations (in fact overkill on that front), but the fact is that particularly at McDonalds it is nearly impossible to understand what the sign is telling you. There is so much information that it isn't clear as to whether it is a warning about leaving rubbish or any other information notice.

 

[feralcat2]

Hi Sidewinder, thank you for the posting of the McDonough photo, I dont't recall sing a coloured sign there back in early october when I got tagged. I only recall the white background & balck writing, the 'no return limit' was 45 minutes. I harbour no doubts whatsoever about the 'no return in 45 minutes' as my wife goaded me to leave before that time limit expired.

Thus, It would appear this is a new sign, but to me it seems extremely confusing. I could not read or absorb all that information whilst driving about that car park, trying to do so would be dangerous for other users. However, as things stand, now I have another arrow in my quiver when they come aknocking again, cheers.

[TideTurner]

This is about forming a contract, which means reading the sign fully rather than a quick readout of a number plate.

 

I understand that Battyboomboom, my point is that the requirement (eyesight) to drive is as on my post.

 

For there to be a contract, both parties must agree to the terms. If the font size is too small, the sign (therefore the terms) would be impossible to read by somebody with a visual impairment, although they could still legally drive.

 

I have heard of one of these signs (Council) being 11ft off the ground, and not in a prominent position.

 

Is there no legislation which gives guidelines on the visibility of any such signage?

[Guest ashkan]

Hi I am a new user. I was checking for the address of Civil Enforcement Ltd, when I found this website and was glad to find out that it was not just me.

I went to Gatwick to pick up my son and near the round about there was a McDonalds. There was notes on all the tables explaining that customers have two hours free parking. I was there for one hour this Saturday I got a letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd that I have parked from 15:12 to 16:12 and I have to pay £75. There is no address for appeal but the letter says if a copy of photographical evidence is required, they can provide it for £10. I called McDonalds and they say the limit was one hour.

I should also mention that when I dropped my son the week before that, I went there and there was a lady at the fron who told everyone the limit is 45 minutes. The guy from McDonalds confirmed this but said they don't have any control over this and another company is dealing with parking.

This is rediculous because I don't have the leaflet which was on the tables. What should I do now?

[Barnsley Boy]

Hi I am a new user. I was checking for the address of Civil Enforcement Ltd, when I found this website and was glad to find out that it was not just me.

I went to Gatwick to pick up my son and near the round about there was a McDonalds. There was notes on all the tables explaining that customers have two hours free parking. I was there for one hour this Saturday I got a letter from Civil Enforcement Ltd that I have parked from 15:12 to 16:12 and I have to pay £75. There is no address for appeal but the letter says if a copy of photographical evidence is required, they can provide it for £10. I called McDonalds and they say the limit was one hour.

I should also mention that when I dropped my son the week before that, I went there and there was a lady at the fron who told everyone the limit is 45 minutes. The guy from McDonalds confirmed this but said they don't have any control over this and another company is dealing with parking.

This is rediculous because I don't have the leaflet which was on the tables. What should I do now?

 

I would not bother with any "appeal" procedure. It can't be deemed fair when the guy deciding on the outcome of an appeal has to effectively decide whether he should pay himself £60 or not - hardly independant.

 

There are template letters on the "sticky" at the top of the forum which are sound, although another tactic is just to ignore completely, rumoured to be equally effective.

[Lilo72]

*removed*

[Charlie23]

Hi feralcat2

 

Thank you for your informative reply... Yours response is exactly the kind of information I was hoping to recieve when I came back on here!

 

I'll let you know what happens.. (if anything)

 

Charlotte

[Sidewinder]

Photo(s) e mailed as requested

 

(I also have a couple of the signs at BP Connect if anybody wants them )

 

The guy from McDonalds confirmed this but said they don't have any control over this and another company is dealing with parking.

 

What should I do now?

 

Of course they have control - their logos are all over the signs and the sign is headed 'McDonalds Customer Car Park'. They protect their TM to the death and will only allow it to be reproduced with express authority, so cannot absolve themselves in that way

 

As for what to do, then spend some time reading this and other similar threads and respond accordingly. Be prepared for more letters and ever increasing demands. This is a business pure and simple and you are trying to deny them valuable profit - there will be threats of debt collectors and court action, but the fact remains that you were unaware of a contract, had no influence over the terms of any alleged contract in any case, and will not be paying them money!

 

Stand firm and argue. It will almost certainly not go beyond letters and threats.

[feralcat2]

Hi Tide-Turner, You say both parties must agree to the contractual terms. this is an over-simplification, Implied contracts are formulated by actions alone. (an implied contract is a 'legal fiction' that allow the mechanisms of trade to operate.

 

When you enter the car park, the operator offers you an 'invitation to treat,' thus by entering, you are accepting his invitation. The signage is simply the conditions he applies to his invitation.

 

The same invation to treat applies in the High Street. The shops oper their doors inviting you in, (as is the car park open) The difference being, that the car park owner has 'time limits' applied to his invite. If you over-stay your welcome, a contract is formulated.

 

The same rule applies in the High Street, you take the goods you seek to purchase to the till, (ie you are making the offer) the contractis formulated when the owner accepts payment. In the car park, the owner is asking for his money.

 

The unenforceable bit only arises when it is (can be) established that the money claimed is a penalty. Your comments on text sizing and signage are substitute or secondary defensive arguements, (not to be dismissed lightly) but fully understand the menuisi & workings of contract law is more productive.

Hope this piece helps.

[legaladviser]

Hi Tide-Turner, You say both parties must agree to the contractual terms. this is an over-simplification, Implied contracts are formulated by actions alone. (an implied contract is a 'legal fiction' that allow the mechanisms of trade to operate.

 

When you enter the car park, the operator offers you an 'invitation to treat,' thus by entering, you are accepting his invitation. The signage is simply the conditions he applies to his invitation.

 

The same invation to treat applies in the High Street. The shops oper their doors inviting you in, (as is the car park open) The difference being, that the car park owner has 'time limits' applied to his invite. If you over-stay your welcome, a contract is formulated.

 

The same rule applies in the High Street, you take the goods you seek to purchase to the till, (ie you are making the offer) the contractis formulated when the owner accepts payment. In the car park, the owner is asking for his money.

 

The unenforceable bit only arises when it is (can be) established that the money claimed is a penalty. Your comments on text sizing and signage are substitute or secondary defensive arguements, (not to be dismissed lightly) but fully understand the menuisi & workings of contract law is more productive.

Hope this piece helps.

This post is plain wrong.

 

For an implied contract to be formed by conduct in parking it is necessary to show that the driver both saw and understood the warning signage (subjective notice). This is clear from the Vine case. Even if the signage is prominent if the driver did not see them he cannot have entered into a contract. In addition any contract formed can only be with the driver, and not the registered keeper to whom demands for payment are routinely sent.

 

This is entirely different from the shop scenario you suggest. The price of the items in the shop is an offer (not an invitation to treat). You accept the offer by taking the item to the till and paying for it. There is a express act of acceptance and this is a million miles away from a private parking case, which attempts to rely on an extremely tenuous implied contract, that in virtually all cases will simply not be able to be proved. In addition the shop cannot pursue your family members in respect of your purchase.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This post is plain wrong.

 

For an implied contract to be formed by conduct in parking it is necessary to show that the driver both saw and understood the warning signage (subjective notice). This is clear from the Vine case. Even if the signage is prominent if the driver did not see them he cannot have entered into a contract. In addition any contract formed can only be with the driver, and not the registered keeper to whom demands for payment are routinely sent.

 

This is entirely different from the shop scenario you suggest. The price of the items in the shop is an offer (not an invitation to treat). You accept the offer by taking the item to the till and paying for it. There is a express act of acceptance and this is a million miles away from a private parking case, which attempts to rely on an extremely tenuous implied contract, that in virtually all cases will simply not be able to be proved. In addition the shop cannot pursue your family members in respect of your purchase.

 

Sorry, you have this the wrong way round.

The display of goods and prices in shops is an "invitation to treat". The offer is made by the customer taking the goods to the till where the assistant confirms the price.

Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1953)

A shop is under no obligation to sell you the goods at the price displayed or any other goods.

So you cannot force a shop to sell you the expensive goods at the incorrectly marked price.

What you can do is to use your mobile phone to take a picture and tell the shop that you propose to send it to Trading Standards as a potential offence of displaying a misleading price. The shop has a due diligence defence but this often does the trick of getting a goodwill agreement from them.

 

Regarding the parking situation, the PPC must have exercised due diligence to make users of the car park aware of the contractual terms under which customers use the car parks. Positioning, detail, illumination, wording and detail of signs is crucial for this, particularly where the first period of time is free and after that a charge applies. IMV any private car park that does not have its conditions or a sign drawing attention to the conditions at its entrance immediately gives its operators an uphill struggle.

[legaladviser]

Sorry, you have this the wrong way round.

The display of goods and prices in shops is an "invitation to treat". The offer is made by the customer taking the goods to the till where the assistant confirms the price.

Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1953)

A shop is under no obligation to sell you the goods at the price displayed or any other goods.

So you cannot force a shop to sell you the expensive goods at the incorrectly marked price.

What you can do is to use your mobile phone to take a picture and tell the shop that you propose to send it to Trading Standards as a potential offence of displaying a misleading price. The shop has a due diligence defence but this often does the trick of getting a goodwill agreement from them.

 

Regarding the parking situation, the PPC must have exercised due diligence to make users of the car park aware of the contractual terms under which customers use the car parks. Positioning, detail, illumination, wording and detail of signs is crucial for this, particularly where the first period of time is free and after that a charge applies. IMV any private car park that does not have its conditions or a sign drawing attention to the conditions at its entrance immediately gives its operators an uphill struggle.

Fair enough, you are generally right but it is possible that a display of goods coupled with a clear intention by the retailer to sell ('to be sold to the first person who comes in the shop with £25 in cash') would be construed as an offer.

 

It does not make a huge difference anyway as the main factor is that the contract is concluded at the till when the customer makes payment and the payment is accepted by the retailer. There is an express acceptance. To constitute acceptance by conduct is however very difficult. The PPC would have to prove that by parking the driver had agreed to the terms, rather than having some other intention.

[Guest ashkan]

Thanks a lot for the advice. If it was not for you, I would have paid the money but now I have decided to fax (also post) them a letter with the picture of the McDonalds sign on the forum. I could not find a letter template anywhere. I appreciate if you could help me with that?

[MikeBigg]

I could not find a letter template anywhere. I appreciate if you could help me with that?

 

The letter templates are in here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/119802-private-parking-tickets-template.html

 

or

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/119917-private-parking-tickets-template.html

 

Mike

[petej2811]

Sorry, you have this the wrong way round.

The display of goods and prices in shops is an "invitation to treat". The offer is made by the customer taking the goods to the till where the assistant confirms the price.

Boots v Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1953)

A shop is under no obligation to sell you the goods at the price displayed or any other goods.

So you cannot force a shop to sell you the expensive goods at the incorrectly marked price.

What you can do is to use your mobile phone to take a picture and tell the shop that you propose to send it to Trading Standards as a potential offence of displaying a misleading price. The shop has a due diligence defence but this often does the trick of getting a goodwill agreement from them.

 

Regarding the parking situation, the PPC must have exercised due diligence to make users of the car park aware of the contractual terms under which customers use the car parks. Positioning, detail, illumination, wording and detail of signs is crucial for this, particularly where the first period of time is free and after that a charge applies. IMV any private car park that does not have its conditions or a sign drawing attention to the conditions at its entrance immediately gives its operators an uphill struggle.

 

Damn you, man! I was hoping, when I read the post you speak of, that I could get my 'Boots Cash Chemists' out!

 

Beaten to it!

 

PJ