Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Jul 16, 8:06 PM
    • 1,165Posts
    • 2,319Thanks
    Lamilad
    Me and Excel - At war!
    • #1
    • 6th Jul 16, 8:06 PM
    Me and Excel - At war! 6th Jul 16 at 8:06 PM
    Ok, so I already have one thread on the go after receiving a CC claim from BW Legal/Excel parking a couple of weeks ago. I have now received papers for another claim and this one is big! Strangely this has come directly from Excel - no mention of BW and the specifics of the claim are different.

    I received a letter from Excel dated 1st July which quoted a claim number. It said 'detailed' POC were enclosed and a copy had also been filed at the court. Enclosed was a 7 point list describing the POC with a statement of truth.

    Today I received the court papers, not from Northampton (as before) but from MCOL. The POC are different from the list Excel sent and very different from the other claim I'm dealing with. Breakdown of claim is:

    Amount Claimed: £627.55
    Court Fee: £60.00
    Legal rep costs: £0.00
    Total amount: £687.55

    Point 2 of the excel POC reads:
    "The claim is for the sum of £627.55 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a parking charge notice issued between the dates 30/08/2014 and the 05/12/2015 in the car park known as ******** Retail Park"

    The is no reference to any dates or specific PCNs in the court POC.

    I find it strange that they can bring a claim against me without actually referring to anything specific - just a range of dates - it doesn't even say how many PCNs they're talking about. I am the RK of the vehicle but not the driver.

    As with my other claim I will send a part 18 then submit a defence but I'm guessing I can't send the same defence due to the POC being very different. I will upload pics of the correspondance received so far. I would really appreciate some advice about what my part 18 and defence should focus on. It would be especially helpful if anyone could advise how to modify my previous defence so it becomes suitable for this case. My other thread is here:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5478608

    I think excel have declared war on me as I am receiving letters galore from them/ BW/ DCBL for other 'contraventions' in the same car park - all threatening court action. I fear defending myself is going to become a full time job

    PLEASE HELP!
Page 4
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 16, 12:08 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    All looks marvellous to me, a really strong effort and with decent supporting evidence too. Have you seen this new claim number to add weight to your Elliott v Loake section?

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

    No transcript yet, it's too new but the claim number, court and Judge and decision can be added as a line to support your E v L rebuttal.

    Your VCS point is strong, I didn't realise you had that element to your case. What a mess Excel have made of this, not just in that cut & paste WS from Anita!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 2nd Nov 16, 9:19 AM
    • 3,489 Posts
    • 3,550 Thanks
    DoaM
    1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there they are true to the best of my information and belief

    5. I have no idea who VCS are or what they have to do with this case. They are not mentioned in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) or in any other documents relating to this claim. I have never had any dealings with VCS nor have I ever received any letters or correspondence from them in relation to parking activities or anything else.

    (Don't use abbreviations without having first defined them).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 2nd Nov 16, 10:02 AM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    All looks marvellous to me, a really strong effort and with decent supporting evidence too. Have you seen this new claim number to add weight to your Elliott v Loake section?

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

    No transcript yet, it's too new but the claim number, court and Judge and decision can be added as a line to support your E v L rebuttal.

    Your VCS point is strong, I didn't realise you had that element to your case. What a mess Excel have made of this, not just in that cut & paste WS from Anita!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    Thanks CM, but the credit is yours. Without your help I wouldn't even have a WS, I've just added a few bits on. A few days ago I was nervous as hell about this now I'm feeling very confident


    Re: the new case above, I will try to include this as well. Thanks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 2nd Nov 16, 10:19 AM
    • 40,464 Posts
    • 80,850 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Thanks CM, but the credit is yours. Without your help I wouldn't even have a WS, I've just added a few bits on. A few days ago I was nervous as hell about this now I'm feeling very confident


    Re: the new case above, I will try to include this as well. Thanks
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    You MUST include this as it is now persuasive that E vs L is not relevant to a private parking case.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 09-02-2017 at 10:12 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd Nov 16, 10:38 AM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 6,421 Thanks
    The Deep
    Do not be fobbed of with £95 costs, go for the big bucks you deserve them.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 2nd Nov 16, 12:07 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    You MUST include this as it is now case law that E vs L is not relevant to a private parking case.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake

    Thanks, I will add it in tonight before completing my bundle.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 2nd Nov 16, 12:09 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Do not be fobbed of with £95 costs, go for the big bucks you deserve them.
    Originally posted by The Deep

    How do I go about claiming my costs? Is there an official form I need to fill in or do I just write some figures on a sheet of paper and take it with me? Something I need to include is the fact I have to put my youngest into childcare that day which will cost me £48.50
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 2nd Nov 16, 12:57 PM
    • 3,489 Posts
    • 3,550 Thanks
    DoaM
    You MUST include this as it is now case law that E vs L is not relevant to a private parking case.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    No it's not, sorry. It was a county court ruling, therefore it may be persuasive, but it's not binding case law. (But still include it anyway).
    Last edited by DoaM; 02-11-2016 at 1:00 PM.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Nov 16, 1:27 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How do I go about claiming my costs? Is there an official form I need to fill in or do I just write some figures on a sheet of paper and take it with me? Something I need to include is the fact I have to put my youngest into childcare that day which will cost me £48.50
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    You set out a costs schedule and take it with you on the day. If you read the recent transcripts put up in blogs this week by the Parking Prankster you can and read a couple of entire hearing conversations from start to finish. You will see how at the end, the Judge might say 'anything else?' and the winner says, 'yes, Sir (or Madam), I would like to claim my costs'. And you can then hand over the costs list you prepared (including your travel and lost wages or childcare proof - get something in advance from the childcare provider to confirm the cost).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 9th Feb 17, 7:47 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    So, I've been away for a long time... As some of you will know this is because my forum posts were being used against me in the case that was adjourned following my victory against Excel/BWL back in November.

    Anyway a lot has been happening behind the scenes since then. I have been assisted off-forum by Coupon Mad (SchoolRunMum) and Bargepole... I say "assisted" it's been much more than that, they've guided me through every step of the process, offering reassurance, solid advice, and writing brilliant letters and statements for me. I've bombarded them with emails and questions on an almost daily basis and they've been nothing but helpful and supportive the whole time. I can't thank them enough - not just for their help but how much I've learned from them.

    So.... what about my second case? Well that was heard today. Jake Burgess was in attendance for Excel - he had submitted a second WS for them in December, which was basically a character assasination on me attacking my credibility and twisting my comments made on this forum. It was really quite offensive and borderline defamatory.... But I suppose desperation can lead to such behaviour.

    The Result...
    Justice served... Claim dismissed!

    ...A relief, considering this would've cost me £687. I was awarded costs of £104.50.

    To be fair to JB, he fought his case well, and even though he was twisting my words and deliberately taking comments out of context he did it well. But the judge insisted it was either PoFA compliance or proof of driver and Excel had neither. in the end, his case, though well argued, was 2 dimensional and lacked any real substance. The judge wanted something concrete and he couldn't offer anything.

    A satisfying victory but I'm not jumping for joy as this was hard fought and uncomfortable at times. It was also tiring as it went on for nearly 3 hours.

    Is this the end for me and Excel? I'm not banking on it!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Feb 17, 8:02 PM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 6,421 Thanks
    The Deep
    Good lord, this is a run of the mill parking scam, how come everything became so dramatic? What on earth were you posting that you needed to go into deep cover?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Feb 17, 8:06 PM
    • 15,432 Posts
    • 24,135 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Brilliantly fought Lami (and CM, BP and other contributors). It's so satisfying to see a PPC royally stuffed, but (reality check) for every PPC stuffed there's a hundred motorists stiffed.

    However, kudos to you Lami on a great victory. Wallow in and enjoy your success. You'll be remembered in forum history. Come back and help others once the dust has settled (and your hangover has cleared! )

    Thanks for updating us.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Feb 17, 8:07 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    As some of you will know this is because my forum posts were being used against me in the case that was adjourned following my victory against Excel/BWL back in November.......
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Now that court cases are becoming commonplace maybe this issue should be highlighted in the Newbies FAQ.


    So many newbies naively allow themselves to be identified because they seemingly underestimate how the ppcs monitor all posts and threads here
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Feb 17, 8:15 PM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 6,421 Thanks
    The Deep
    I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.


    Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-02-2017 at 8:20 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Feb 17, 8:20 PM
    • 6,333 Posts
    • 8,144 Thanks
    beamerguy


    The Result...
    Justice served... Claim dismissed!

    ...A relief, considering this would've cost me £687. I was awarded costs of £104.50.

    Is this the end for me and Excel? I'm not banking on it!
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    Well done again

    Unsure why they use text from this forum ?

    Why would you hear anything more from Excel. all they can do is poop in their nappies.

    Don't forget, If Excel don't pay the £104.50, get the court bailiffs to pay them a visit for collection

    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 9th Feb 17, 8:22 PM
    • 2,140 Posts
    • 6,185 Thanks
    bargepole
    I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.


    Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    The forum posting (on Pepipoo) was central to the case, as Excel were arguing that there was an inference that he was driving. The judge found that not to be the case. But we advised him to stay off-forum until it was all over.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 29. Lost 9.
    • fil cad
    • By fil cad 9th Feb 17, 8:38 PM
    • 753 Posts
    • 599 Thanks
    fil cad
    Great Result, the lengths ppcs go to extort your cash.
    PPCs say its carpark management, BPA say its raising standards..... we all know its just about raking in the revenue.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 9th Feb 17, 8:42 PM
    • 1,165 Posts
    • 2,319 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I am puzzled, how can what one posts on an internet forum be used against one, unless one admits to driving? Even an admission of bilking is not fatal. How come such a simple case wasted so much of everyones' time.


    Sometimes I des[air at the stupidity ay some of these parking companies. I am sure that Lamilad will now make their lives hell.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    In my pepipoo thread I'd stated that I couldn't remember the event or who was driving, but in my WS I'd stated that I definitely was not driving. JB tried to say both can't be true therefore I was lying and not a 'credible' witness.

    Problem (for him) was the thread he was quoting from was about my previous case back in Nov, involving a different vehicle and had no bearing on this case whatsoever. Despite this I addressed the comment which was among the first few comments posted, by saying truthfully that at the time of receiving the court papers I could not recollect an otherwise unremarkable event on an unremarkable day. It was only as I investigated further, over the coming weeks and months, that I knew that I couldn't have been the driver and so was able to state as much in my WS.

    He also picked up on a comment where I'd said I use the car park regularly yet in both cases I had stated that I had not ever driven either vehicle to the car park in question. This is true as I was referring to the fact that I used to use the car park regularly a few years ago when I owned a different vehicle. Nonetheless he went on about this for ages trying to say my comments didn't make sense and I must be lying. I wasn't, I just hadn't worded it right... but it's a comment on an internet forum not a formal witness statement
    • catfunt
    • By catfunt 9th Feb 17, 8:49 PM
    • 595 Posts
    • 912 Thanks
    catfunt
    Now that court cases are becoming commonplace maybe this issue should be highlighted in the Newbies FAQ.


    So many newbies naively allow themselves to be identified because they seemingly underestimate how the ppcs monitor all posts and threads here
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Indeed - I do raise this very issue from time to time as in this post

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5532696

    and this case shows exactly why. OK, there was nothing incriminating in Lamilad's posts, but the potential for problems is very clear.

    This issue needs raising at the very top of the Newbies thread under a "Before You Post" heading, to try and avoid situations like this.

    Lamilad - Congrats! I know you had plenty of help, but you still had to see it through. Good on you mate!
    Got a Private Parking Notice??
    ** Do Not Pay
    ** Do Not Ignore a Notice to Keeper (except Scotland)
    ** Do not mention who was driving (No "Me" Myself" "I")
    ** Never, ever phone a Private Parking Company
    ** Please read the NEWBIES thread at the top of the forum
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Feb 17, 9:18 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As already said - very well done Lamilad! We enjoyed helping you and we'd like to see you stick around.

    What Lamilad hasn't said is that he helps other newbies himself already, based on what he has learned and he immediately obtained the transcript to his first win, at significant cost that he felt was not a problem to give something back to others. He did that in order that other newbies can benefit from using it to show a case well-argued on the ''no POFA, no liability'' point.

    Hopefully The Parking Prankster will pick up on this and publish Lamilad's full court report about 'round two' (we haven't heard it all from you yet Lamilad - blow by blow please, once you've calmed down!) and hopefully the Prankster will also host the court transcript of 'Lamilad Round One' at Skipton, from November 2016, in his Case Law pages.

    Just goes to show, however Excel happened to come across that pepipoo thread, Lamilad was being honest and the innocent party won. In this case it was vital to take this off-forum; we could see that his cases were attracting interest and becoming a target and we guessed yesterday that Excel would not just send a third party rep.

    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-02-2017 at 9:21 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

108Posts Today

2,323Users online

Martin's Twitter