Civil Enforcement Limited in court tomorrow

[Bazster]

"Yeah yeah" I hear you say, "they never show up anyway".

Well this time they just might, given that the court is the Aberdeen Sherriff's Court, CEL is facing one charge of operating a fraudulent scheme and 11 charges under consumer contracts regulations, and if they don't show arrest warrants will be issued.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Yet another superstar in the dock and it's not Yewtree related this time.

[Bazster]

The Overall Superstar is not a director of CEL, and nor is Ashley Cohen.  However, it is believed that the Scottish authorities have information as to who the "controlling minds and wills" of the company might be, so that hopefully they can make out the arrest warrants correctly.

Following the chain of ownership eventually leads, several companies upstream, to a company of which the Overall Superstar and Cohen are indeed directors, namely Bemrose Mobile Ltd. of St. Albans.  Appropriately enough Bemrose' offices are located in what used to be St. Albans Prison.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Things must be underway by now. I guess The Prankster's visit stats will be taking another good pounding today.

[scalyback]

if they don't show arrest warrants will be issued.

YABBA, DABBA, DOO!

[Ewan Hoosami]

Pranky has updated,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/cel-criminal-case-heard-in-aberdeen.html

It's worth noting that Criminal Enterprise Limited aren't the only weasels who have both abused the scottish legal system and have satisfied the BPA Ltd's 'rigorous compliance criteria'. Birds of a feather and all that…………….

[Bazster]

CEL will be the fifth (as far as I know) current BPA member where the company, or at least one of its officers, has a criminal conviction relating to their "business" activities.  The crimes are non-trivial too, including racially-aggravated assault and false imprisonment.

The BPA, Driving Up Standards.

[Bazster]

Surprise surprise, they no-showed.  Re-scheduled for four weeks hence.  It is not known whether PC McPlod will be deployed to encourage their attendance.

[The Bald Eagle]

Surprise surprise, they no-showed.  Re-scheduled for four weeks hence.  It is not known whether PC McPlod will be deployed to encourage their attendance.

Well they threatened arrest warrants would be issued if they no-showed, so unless they received a reasonable excuse from the Defendants (oooh I do love calling them that ) as to why they couldn't appear yesterday, then I'm sure the warrants will have been made out and will be winging their way to appropriate authority for enforcement against the Defendants (there it is again ).

[Bazster]

Apparently their legal "team" showed up.  I don't know enough about the Scottish legal system to know if that was sufficient at this stage.  The case is definitely being pursued to the next stage (whatever that is!)

[Web Admin]

London firm on trial in Aberdeen over allegedly invalid parking charges

A London firm is to go on trial accused of fraud after allegedly sending parking charges to Scottish motorists knowing they were invalid.

Civil Enforcement Ltd is alleged to have sent letters to drivers, demanding that they pay penalty charges after parking at various addresses across Aberdeenshire.

The company allegedly claimed the notice was enforceable under schedule four of the Protection of Freedoms Act, which covers the recovery of unpaid parking charges.

Prosecutors in Scotland say the firm did this in the knowledge that the legislation does not apply to residents north of the border.

The case called at Aberdeen Sheriff Court yesterday and a trial was set for later this year.

No one from the business was present in court and not guilty pleas were tendered by a solicitor acting on the company’s behalf.

The business faces 11 charges relating to Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading legislation and one charge of running a fraudulent scheme.

It is claimed one driver was sent “persistent and unwanted” solicitations by letter between December 2013 and April last year.

The charge states that James Stewart, of Inverurie, was sent mail after notifying the business he was not the driver of the vehicle concerned.

Another motorist, Kenneth Montgomery, of Kintore, is alleged to have been sent a letter stating that proceedings would be taken against him if he did not pay cash that was due.



https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeen/544353/london-firm-on-trial-in-aberdeen-over-allegedly-invalid-parking-charges/

[The Bald Eagle]

"The company allegedly claimed the notice was enforceable under schedule four of the Protection of Freedoms Act, which covers the recovery of unpaid parking charges.

Prosecutors in Scotland say the firm did this in the knowledge that the legislation does not apply to residents north of the border."

Of course the papers have to say "allegedly" in order to cover their arses, but let us assume for one moment that the Prosecutors in Scotland who have bought this case have done so on the basis that the idiots at CEL Ltd have put it in writing. In fact I would say that the Prosecutors in Scotland would never be so stoopid to have brought such a case without the evidence being in writing.

Then we're told "not guilty pleas were tendered by a solicitor acting on the company’s behalf". Not guilty eh? So what they are saying is that they did not know "that the legislation does not apply to residents north of the border."

Let's see how this might play out in court. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury may I draw your attention to the BPA Ltd's Code of Practice that has a whole section at part C entitled "C OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND". On the other hand there is another section entitled "B OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES".

In part B there are numerous references to the fact that PoFA applies IN ENGLAND AND WALES. Part C however, is quite rightly completely devoid of any references to PoFA.

Now ladies and gentlemen, I refer you to Part 14 of the Code of Practice "14 Misrepresentation of authority"

14.1 states "You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority.

I now turn your attention to the section headed "4 Conditions" which says (amongst other things) at 4.1 "4.1 Any organisation or person applying for BPA or AOS membership must:

• sign a declaration agreeing to keep to the Code and its principles"

and

"If you do not sign your declaration and pay your fees, you will not be a member of the BPA"

Since CEL Ltd are currently listed as members of the BPA Ltd's AOS scheme we can safely conclude that the controlling minds at CEL (who are the defendants in this case), will have signed the Code of Practice. QED

4.3 of the Code of Practice states: "4.3 Under the Code you must keep to all the requirements laid down by law. The Code reflects our understanding of the law at the date of publication. However, you are responsible for familiarising yourself with the law on any activities covered by the Code."

So there you have it. The defendants signed a declaration on the BPA Ltd's Code of Practice that they would agree to keep to the Code and its principles, one of which was an undertaking to familiarise themselves with the law. And yet you are now being asked to believe that not only did the defendants not read the Code of Practice before signing an undertaking to uphold its principles, they were completely ignorant of the fact that PoFA does not apply in Scotland.

May I remind you that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

In conclusion, the issue for you to decide today ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is whether you believe the defendants when they say they were not aware that the relevant legislation on which they sought to rely does not apply in Scotland.

Personally speaking, I believe the defendants to be a lying bunch of toe rags, but it is for you to decide if you agree with me.

[DastardlyDick]

Well, if warrants have been issued, that'll be a nice bit of O/T for PC McPlod to come and get them!

[Ewan Hoosami]

Personally speaking, I believe the defendants to be a lying bunch of toe rags, but it is for you to decide if you agree with me.

"I object! M'learned friend is making a personal opinion and cannot possibly have any proof to back up his wild accusations."

"M'learned friend's client is a member of the BPA Ltd, M'lud."

"I withdraw my objection M'lud."

"M'learned friend's client is also an ugly c nt, M'lud"

"I object!"

""

"I defer to M'learned friend's considerable expertise in this area M'lud."