Excel signage in Prestwich impossible to read, IAS thinks not....!

dazster · 7 March 2016 at 2:28PM

The 'phone owner can block their number, exactly how to do it depends on what kind of 'phone it is.

Coupon-mad · 7 March 2016 at 2:39PM

traceynob wrote: »

Worrying and annoying development......someone from Excel has today telephoned the mobile phone of the registered keeper to further harass and demand payment. This is despite us never contacting them by phone or giving details of any personal phone numbers. How have they managed to get this information? Why is this even allowed?
I despair......! How difficult can it be for the government to put regulation in place to stop this massive scam affecting hundreds of thousands of people every year?

Are you sure this wasn't a debt collector 'for' Excel?

You tell them to cease and desist and they are harassing a registered keeper, who cannot be liable because Excel do not invoke keeper liability. Tell them the alleged debt is denied and the driver will not be divulged. Do not get drawn on that or about what happened.

Phone down once you've said the above.

Rinse and repeat if they try again, or block their number but keep a note of any texts and phone calls as this can certainly/easily become a crime of harassment.

traceynob · 2 April 2016 at 1:56PM

Changed phone number for other reasons (changed contract)....but hopefully that will also stop the phone calls.....

Just wanted to share a couple of the more outrageous paragraphs in the latest letter received from BW Legal;

'We wish to bring to your attention the case of Parking Eye vs Beavis (2015).......
This case eliminates the main defence that you will have should the matter go to court and this case will be relied on by our client in any County Court proceedings.'

I'm quite happy to let the numpties rely on it then as it has nothing to do with the defence in this case.

'You should note that if your claim has already been processed through an Independent Appeal Service (IAS) and an IAS has dismissed your appeal, then it is likely that a County Court will come to a similar conclusion and your defence will be unsuccessful'.

Really....? Does anyone know of a case dismissed by IAS that then won in court?

Before anyone asks, I've already complained to SRA about the use of these spurious and downright incorrect statements, but they claim that BW Legal are not breaking any Code of Practice!!

I really do despair that these companies are allowed to operate unchecked and basically can say whatever they want and totally get away with it because no-one who could stop it actually cares....

hoohoo · 2 April 2016 at 9:16PM

traceynob wrote: »

Before anyone asks, I've already complained to SRA about the use of these spurious and downright incorrect statements, but they claim that BW Legal are not breaking any Code of Practice!!

As per post #59, probably the correct people to complain to are the CSA. Unlike the SRA, these people will take action.

Get their code of practice here:
http://www.csa-uk.com/

Then make a formal complaint to BS*** Legal about all the failures to obey the code of practice. One of these is their use of telephone. First you need to formally request they stop using the phone to contact you. If they do it again, they are in breach.

When they fail to handle it correctly, escalate to the CSA. They then *have* to follow a painful procedure which will probably make them shy clear from any further contact.

Other BS reasons are the lies in their letter. I have helped with huge numbers of court cases. Beavis is a red herring. Even before Beavis I don't remember winning many on the GPEOL angle; most court cases are won on other points, such as signage, standing, POFA 2012 etc etc.

Also, the IAS are a jumped-up kangaroo court with delusions of grandeur. Their findings are rarely if ever upheld by real judges. Just search the parking prankster blog for 'gladstones' to find plenty of examples where gladstones try on arguments which the IAS allow, but real judges laugh out of court.

traceynob · 12 August 2016 at 1:40PM

I said I would keep this thread updated so here goes!
It's now 18 months since the whole debacle started. I haven't had any further threatening letters since around May 2016. I don't appear to have been taken to court yet.
I am hoping that this is because all along I have vigorously denied owing any money, and clearly and consistently stated that there was no contract due to the poor signage in the car-park in question.
I have also said in writing that if Excel take me to court and lose, then I will be claiming my costs of around £625 from them over and above any court costs awarded (as these tend to be capped) based on a fully-itemised and genuine pre-estimate of loss of the time, stationary, postage etc I will have spent in defending my claim.

I've noticed that all the Excel signage and the ticket machine has now completely disappeared from the site in question. I wrote a number of increasingly rude and irate letters to the landowner which they completely ignored, but maybe hopefully they had an effect and the landowners have finally thrown Excel off the site/failed to renew the contract. In which case, ha ha ha!!

Umkomaas · 12 August 2016 at 1:47PM

More power to your elbow Tracey. Wish others would show the same fighting spirit as you by taking it to the bully, rather than timidly hiding in the corner until something further and nastier drops through their letterbox, then expect already overstretched regulars to dig them out of their next hole.

The_Deep · 12 August 2016 at 2:59PM

Give the pot a stir, send them an invoice, but do not charge more than £19 an hour for time, 45ppm for travel, £5 to receive a letter and £7.50 to reply.

traceynob · 27 September 2016 at 9:06PM

Oh bum, spoke too soon, got a Northampton County Court Claim in post today....:sad:

I understand that the first step is to return an Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) form within 14 days stating my intention to defend the claim in full. I then send an initial brief defence statement within 28 days. I will then receive a Directions Questionaire to complete where I can choose to have the hearing in a local court and to not have mediation.

I know all the regulars are busy people but I'd appreciate some quick responses to the following questions to make sure I'm not missing anything major.

1) Excel/BW Legal have not complied with pre-court protocol, they did send a letter before action ages ago which didn't comply with Practice Direction and I asked them in writing to provide me with further evidence/information but they didn't respond. As they haven't complied, does this mean the court claim is invalid (wishful thinking but worth a try)?

2) The claim is in my sons name as he is the registered keeper but Excel have never established who was the driver on the night in question and have been happily corresponding with me all the way through this debacle. Do they have to state whether they are making the claim against my son as driver or keeper? It's not mentioned in their Particulars of Claim?

3) At what point do I get to ask Excel to show me their evidence e.g proof of authority from landowner, evidence of lighting in car park on night in question etc. Do I put this in my initial defence?

Thanks

Coupon-mad · 27 September 2016 at 9:16PM

As they haven't complied, does this mean the court claim is invalid (wishful thinking but worth a try)?

No. Sorry! Your son can state in his defence that they have not complied and the Particulars of Claim are incoherent and show no cause of action, nor even on what basis they are holding a registered keeper liable bearing in mind they cannot rely on the POFA Schedule 4, by their own woeful choice of PCN wording.

Do they have to state whether they are making the claim against my son as driver or keeper? It's not mentioned in their Particulars of Claim?

They should do, but we know anyway that Excel never comply with the POFA so can only say that they are trying to hold the keeper liable on the assumption he was driving (they cannot do anything else). So your son's defence should plagiarise the other ones on here over the Summer where people have mentioned Henry Greenslade's wording that no parking firm should suggest that a keeper can be assumed to be the driver because there is no such presumption in law.

At what point do I get to ask Excel to show me their evidence e.g proof of authority from landowner, evidence of lighting in car park on night in question etc. Do I put this in my initial defence?

Your son could ask, in a Part 18 request now, this week, to BW Legal (I assume the claim is via them?).

Otherwise your son will only get to see more, much nearer the hearing time when they show their hand in their court evidence.

Anyway you will find all these points are covered in pretty much any BW legal defence you find when you search. Make sure you read more than one, then show us your son's adapted version This is still worth the fight, not least because the claim is lacking in detail (because BW Legal have not looked at any detail yet) and because the keeper can't be held liable.

And because even if a case is lost, the amount your son would need to then pay would be under £200 for a single PCN, a fair bit less than the scare tactic claim currently made up to a higher sum. No CCJ, no repercussions, as long as he knows to pay if he loses.

traceynob · 16 October 2016 at 1:38AM

I found it hard to summon up the enthusiasm to prepare my initial defence, as I've reached such a stage of disillusionment that I was beginning to think it would be easier to just pay than get my hopes up yet again that there is any kind of justice or fairness in the world. However I've given myself a good talking to and am going to fight to the (probably bitter) end. I don't know how you regulars keep going, with so few glimmers of light out there.....

Anyway here's my initial defence, please advise if anyone sees any glaring errors.

Statement of Defence

The claim arises from the Claimant issuing an invoice or ‘Parking Charge Notice’ for £100 to the Defendant’s vehicle xxxxxx on xx/xx/xx. The defendant has from the outset denied any liability in respect of the claim and has repeatedly requested that the Claimant provides evidence of the legal basis to their claim which the Claimant has to date failed to do.
The Claimant has issued Particulars of Claim which are insufficient in detail and fail to disclose the head or heads of action on which proceedings are based. Through not describing the facts upon which the claim is based, and not describing how the amount claimed is calculated, the Claimant has not complied with Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, and as such, the court is invited to dismiss the claim.
The Claimant has, since February 2015, subjected the Defendant to a barrage of letters, demanding ever increasing sums of money but refusing to respond to reasonable requests to provide the evidence necessary to support their claims. These letters have often misrepresented the legal process, in attempts to threaten and intimidate the Defendant into paying the amount demanded. The Claimant is a serial litigator and the issuing of this Claim without any legal basis appears to be another attempt to intimidate the Defendant, who does not have the legal expertise of the Claimant, into paying an unsubstantiated charge. This shows a complete lack of respect for the court process and also demonstrates the failure of the Claimant to attempt to mitigate losses, by escalating a £1.00 parking fee into a demand for £240.88.
The Claimant has additionally failed to comply with Practice Direction by refusing to respond to the Defendants request to use an independent form of dispute resolution.
As a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), Excel Parking are able to access
registered keeper details from DVLA. However, IPC membership requires Excel to comply with
their Code of Practice which they have failed to do with respect to their signage in this case.
Excel have previously been suspended by the DVLA from accessing registered keeper details
due to failure to comply with the Code of Practice.
It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the land in question or that they have any other
right or proprietary interest in the land.
The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in
possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and issue enforcement proceedings in
their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
In the absence of strict proof, I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike
the matter out.
If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing, then I submit that the signage at the site at the time and date of the alleged event was insufficient to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and also did not comply with the requirements of the IPC Code of Practice to which the Claimant was a signatory at the time. The signage was inadequate in terms of the following;

Lack of illumination of signage (and the car park) during the hours of darkness
Lack of clarity and prominence of terms and conditions
Illegible text due to font size, density, colour and complexity
Large numbers of confusing and conflicting signs, including signs from other parties, such that it was not clear which signs had precedence
Lack of relevant terms and conditions, such as the fees for parking
Inadequate positioning of signs, for example, at unsuitable heights

10. As the Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to make the terms and conditions of the car park clear and prominent, particularly during the hours of darkness, it cannot be assumed that
anyone entering the car park was immediately aware of, and agreed, the terms and conditions.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant saw, read and agreed the terms on the night
in question.
11. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no
contract and the Claimant has no case, and as such, the court is invited to dismiss the claim.

12. Even had the terms and conditions been sufficiently prominent, terms which are unfair are not
legally binding. Terms which are considered unfair include requiring any consumer who fails to
fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. It is also unfair to
impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A charge of £100.00 for failing to pay a
sum of £1.00 which was not prominently displayed in the first place can be considered a
disproportionate sum.

13. It is anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of
Parking Eye v Beavis. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the
Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and Excel
Parking have not demonstrated any commercial justification for such a disproportionate amount
being charged.

14. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as debt collection costs of £54.00 and
legal costs of £50.00. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a
sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The
Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the
Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have
actually been incurred. Furthermore, legal costs cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court and
should be struck out as unrecoverable.

15. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The keeper can only
be held liable if the claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements. The Claimant has not
established whether the Defendant was the driver on the night in question and have not clarified
whether they are pursuing the Defendant as Keeper or as Driver.

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions

17. Considering all the above circumstances, I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.

Excel signage in Prestwich impossible to read, IAS thinks not....!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free