A number of motorists have contacted The Prankster saying that CEL have been in touch with a copy of a letter from the Co-op.
The letter is signed on behalf of Chris Jones from the Co-op and states CEL have the authority to issue parking charges.
The Prankster last met Mr Jones in Bristol, where he was present for a directions hearing.
CEL/DEAL had filed cases against 50 or more Co-op employees and two cases were selected as test cases, stayed until after ParkingEye v Beavis. The cases were Civil Enforcement Limited v Curtis A93YM708, and DEAL v Colclough A79YP365.
The Prankster cannot therefore think of any reason Mr Jones would write such a letter...unless the Co-op have cut a deal with CEL, and have provided them with this letter in exchange for dropping all claims against Co-op employees.
If there was another reason, then The Prankster invites the Co-op to put the record straight. Otherwise, it appears the Co-op may have thrown their customers to the wolves.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
and was there any outcome on the linked case , or is it still on hold due to Bevis ,?
ReplyDeleteActually now that i'm awake, it doesn't refute customer services contention that the assignment was not with the full knowledge of the Co-op. It merely states there was a contract for parking with Creative.
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me like a carefully worded letter to get DEAL off their back. It is not in any way ambiguous and specifically does not address the issue of debt assignment or litigation. A decent judge seeing that letter would recognise it for what it is - in response to queries about the legal position it is a tacit denial that any debt assignment or legal delegation exists.
ReplyDeleteI'd call that paper aeroplane material at best. The only thing that would confirm CEL as having authority would be a contract between Co-op and CEL which pre-dates the parking event.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's nice that Ashley Cohen is no longer cornering the entire UK job market.
are the two test cases (coop staff v CSL/DEAL) still active?
ReplyDeleteA93YM708 and A79YP365 , they were adjourned until the bevis COA , but no word since?