MyParkingCharge.co.uk

Fruitcake wrote: »

What 14 day period?

Dear Excel Parking Services Ltd,

Re: Your Letter before Claim re PCN xxxxxxxx

This is a formal response to your 'Notice of Intended Court Proceedings'. You have failed to supply any photographs or evidence of the driver, nor even the 'contract' (in this case presumably a sign), nor have you set out clearly, the basis upon which you are attempting to hold me liable. Therefore any proposed claim is unlikely to succeed.

The driver's identity will not be supplied to a company like yours. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

Should you seek to proceed with a claim I will apply for it to be struck out, due to CPR Part 3.4:

(a) that Excel Parking Services statement of case will disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim;
(b) that the statement of case will be an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; and
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

Breaches of the Pre-action Practice Direction (“the PD”):

Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the PD set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:
- understand each other’s positions (para 3)
- make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)
- explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)
- support the “efficient management” of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)
- “stocktake” and review their respective positions after following the PD by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to “at least” narrow the issues (para 12).

Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a Claimant to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a Defendant at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:
- explain the claim in a Letter before Claim, and
- provide relevant core documents.

I will also submit that you have hereby been informed by this letter, that a valid parking ticket was purchased on the day the PCN was issued. This was evidenced in my previous appeal correspondence and I re-enclose a copy of the valid ticket once more.

I expect Excel Parking Services Ltd. to now cancel this 'parking charge' and admit its mistake in attempting to misuse my data, and in trying to mislead me by suggesting that a registered keeper is liable for a non-POFA parking charge 'debt', and that I could be liable for escalated costs/legal fees.

However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g):

''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''.

I refer Excel Parking Services to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct:
''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.''

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that the charge is cancelled. Should you fail to cancel this PCN and/or pursue a baseless claim without supplying any evidence of any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation, or photographs, or the contract, or your basis for pursuing a registered keeper outwith the POFA 2012, you may consider this adequate notice of my intention to sue Excel Parking Services Ltd, for the significant distress your actions have caused.

I reserve the right to include your client (landowner/agent) in any claim made, since that party remains jointly and severally liable for the conduct of its agents on their land.
All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Practically no chance, because they know you are intimidated and they milk that weakness. You will win this in court, and your response is merely to look reasonable and to show that you are not a pushover.

No-one here supports your view of wishing you had paid £60, that's just a defeatist attitude!

We win cases, no worries, send that then come back when the claim arrives and stay calm, the winning experience has been described as ''ace'' by a lady who reported back.