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
    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 17th Dec 16, 9:16 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 10Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    Claim Form EXCEL/BW LEGAL is still worth defence?
    • #1
    • 17th Dec 16, 9:16 PM
    Claim Form EXCEL/BW LEGAL is still worth defence? 17th Dec 16 at 9:16 PM
    Hi, I’m Newbie here.
    Sorry about my English, but its not my Mother Tongue.
    At January2016 I parked at Peel Centre Stockport, bought ticket for 3 hours, but didn’t realise there is just letter E instead of my whole registration number.
    After week I received Parking Charge Notice from Excel Parking. I was thinking its just simply mistake, fortunately found this ticket in my car, then send them photo of it.
    I realised there is just letter E after month when they sent me a letter that I failed to purchase valid ticket as I entered E rather than required details, so appeal was rejected.
    After that I made an appeal to IAS which has been dismissed.
    After plenty of notices from BWLegal finally I received Claim Form few days ago.
    The main question is:
    Is still worth to defence if I used plenty of irrelevant defences to IAS follow my unprofessional searches on internet (simply copied and modified quotes)?
    Or should I give up and pay them total amount 235.40?

    My appeal to the IAS:
    1. When I bought ticket I paid right quote for right period, so the lack of registration number making no loss at all, or is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    2. The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.
    3. I have no idea how letter "E" occurred on my ticket, however there shouldn't be possibility to print ticket without registration number, and payment should be rejected.
    4. Number and size of information boards doesn't mean they are readable enough. I wasn't able to read it properly on my legal speed when entered parking.
    5. Notice refers to a "contravention" which is misleading for implying it to have been issued by statuory authority. The term "contravention" which is usable only in penalty charge notices issued by local authorities is neither correct nor appropriate terminology for a civil parking notice, The IPC Code of Practice Part B 14.1 is clear in its rules that the Operator must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges.



    I expect here is a very busy time for everyone just before Christmas, but any suggestion will help me in this matter very much
    Last edited by HarryJelonek; 18-12-2016 at 11:40 AM. Reason: Hide some details
Page 1
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 17th Dec 16, 10:23 PM
    • 1,670 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    hoohoo
    • #2
    • 17th Dec 16, 10:23 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Dec 16, 10:23 PM
    There appears to be a malfunction with the ticket machines such that they often do this. As such, it is hardly your fault if Excels system is broken and you can defend on this basis. Judges will support you.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/excel-parking-get-gladstonedby-bw-legal.html
    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html - transcript cs033
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/parkingeye-lose-in-court-unsolved.html
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/vcs-lose-in-court-keeper-not-liable-for.html
    Last edited by hoohoo; 19-12-2016 at 6:37 AM.
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 18th Dec 16, 9:09 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    • #3
    • 18th Dec 16, 9:09 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Dec 16, 9:09 PM
    Thank You hoohoo!
    I'm going to defence.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Dec 16, 10:41 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 18th Dec 16, 10:41 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Dec 16, 10:41 PM
    Thank You hoohoo!
    I'm going to defence.
    Originally posted by HarryJelonek
    Good.

    So start with the NEWBIES thread - look at all links under the heading 'Small Claim?' Shows you what to do and by when and example defences including BW Legal ones.

    On this forum we've not yet lost one v BW Legal when we've assisted in the defence. Most seem to be stayed as they do not pay the hearing fee, only a few go to a hearing, none lost with a forum defence when the right evidence is taken to court. You will need the transcripts from the Prankster's blogs as evidence in due course, but at this stage you need to do the Acknowledgement of Service first, leaving the defence blank. Then work on the defence.

    Look at Lamilad's thread, shows you a case won, from start to finish including an account of the hearing. Please don't ask for a link, not only do I not generally feed links when cases are easy to search for but it's one of those already shown in the NEWBIES thread anyway.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-12-2016 at 10:45 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 20th Dec 16, 11:49 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    • #5
    • 20th Dec 16, 11:49 AM
    • #5
    • 20th Dec 16, 11:49 AM
    Thank You Coupon-mad I'm really happy that you noticed my thread

    Yesterday I did Acknowledgement of Service online.

    Last night I've spend jumping from site to site online, reading, translating and interpreting information follow sugestion
    I feel that my head is going to explode...
    However I scetched something about Defence:

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. XXXXXXX.
    The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at Peel Centre-Stockport on XX/01/2016.

    2. The car park in question is one where I having parked several times before, so I am familiar with ticket machines located there.

    3. On the material date I entered the car park. I went to pay for my ticket. I paid for my ticket and I entered my registration number and obtained the ticket that came out with Reg:E on it. I displayed that ticket. I paid an appropriate sum for me to park in the car park for up to three hours. I did not remain in the car park beyond three hours, and as far as I was concerned had fully complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.

    4. After I received PCN issued by Claimant I sent them copy of obtained ticket. They rejected that evidence, despite they were fully aware that the machines Excel use at the Peel Centre seem particularly prone to failure (Claim no. C8DP11F9 & C8DP36F0).


    5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £104.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report BW Legal to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.


    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true
    Last edited by HarryJelonek; 21-12-2016 at 4:51 PM.
    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 21st Dec 16, 9:52 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    • #6
    • 21st Dec 16, 9:52 PM
    Wrong details on POC?
    • #6
    • 21st Dec 16, 9:52 PM
    I just realized there may be some mistake on POC made by claimant:

    "The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 24/01/2016 (Issue Date) at HH:MM:SS at Peel - Centre Stockport Anpr Charging Scheme Std(60-100)......etc.

    Issue date of PCN they sent to me is 29/01/2016
    It seems that they used contravention date instead of issue date on POC.

    Is this matter worth consideration?
    Last edited by HarryJelonek; 21-12-2016 at 10:09 PM. Reason: not finished post
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Dec 16, 12:46 AM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 22nd Dec 16, 12:46 AM
    • #7
    • 22nd Dec 16, 12:46 AM
    Yes I would include that fact where you state that the Particulars of Claim are incoherent and lacking in any facts or concise, clear details that could identify a cause of action.

    I would say a BW Legal defence needs more than you have there. Here is a defence written by bargepole for a specific issue of a faulty machine (Claimant was PCN (NW) using CSB Solicitors LTD):

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/dykc9qeqd271y7p/PCG_Defence1.docx?dl=0

    This was the case in question:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5340304

    that defence was specific to a faulty P&D machine but please note, it was created for that specific case, can't be a template for other cases where different circumstances are likely to apply. However you can use the same case law but with different wording such as this:


    I submit that the alleged contractual requirement regarding the VRN created by the Claimant’s signage, is voidable under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and as held in Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126, for the reason that it became impossible for me to ensure that the machine had recorded the correct VRN, through no fault of mine. This was a fault of the machine over which I had no control and in fact I did enter the correct VRN, so there was no breach from my actions. In the alternative, in Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes ‘reasonable endeavours’ to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.


    You can see from that linked version how to set it out: numbered, double line-spaced in Times New Roman font 12.

    Show us your new draft with the above paragraph added. And add an introduction at the start that says:

    The Particulars of Claim are incoherent and lacking in any facts or concise, clear details that could identify a cause of action. In addition, the particulars mention a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ''issued on 24/01/2016 (Issue Date)'' but I am not aware of any PCN from the Claimant with that date of issue. This is indicative of a robo-claim from BW Legal who have issued tens of thousands of generic claims for VCS and Excel Parking companies this year with no due diligence nor scrutiny of material facts, not least checking that there is a cause of action when in fact, these machines at the Peel Centre are already known by both Excel and BW Legal to be faulty. There is nothing in the particulars which could give rise to a claim in law.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-12-2016 at 12:54 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 22nd Dec 16, 8:00 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    • #8
    • 22nd Dec 16, 8:00 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Dec 16, 8:00 PM
    Thank you Coupon-mad for such incredible work!

    Yesterday I cited just part of Particulars of Claim, contained wrong issue date of PCN.

    I should be quoting the whole POC which contains more details, but I was so exicited that I found something wrong so decided to send it to share on forum ASAP. My fault which may lead to some changes at introduction. Apologise for that.

    "The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 24/01/2016 (Issue Date) at HH:MM:SS at Peel - Centre Stockport Anpr Charging Scheme Std(60-100).
    The PCN relates to under registration XXXXXXX.
    The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN, but the Defendant failed to do so.
    Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
    The Claim also includes Statuory Interest pursuant to section 69 of the Country Courts Act 1984 at a rate 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from 24/01/2016 to 08/12/2016 being an amount of £6.40 .
    The Claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions."
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Dec 16, 11:21 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 22nd Dec 16, 11:21 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Dec 16, 11:21 PM
    That's OK, those are still incoherent particulars. It fails to state anything about any alleged contravention or the contract breached.

    So start your defence with an introduction headed up 'PRELIMINARY MATTERS' using the wording I gave you there that starts 'The Particulars of Claim are incoherent and lacking in any facts...'

    And add the extra point I gave you based on bargepole's other one. I re-wrote that defence point to suit your situation.

    Oh, and where you state '(Claim no. C8DP11F9 & C8DP36F0)' I would add the name or initials of the Defendant, the name of the Claimant (Excel of course), the Court and the dates of those decisions too.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 23rd Dec 16, 6:21 AM
    • 1,670 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    hoohoo
    I would also throw in battle of the forms for good measure.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Battle_of_the_forms
    http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=02062339-d6cf-4778-898a-272c97caf071

    The claimant uses ANPR and so they can reasonably be expected to know if any vehicle is or is not in the car park. By allowing me to enter a numberplate which they know or reasonably should know was not in the car park, they have accepted a contract variation. This is the parking equivalent of the "Battle of the forms". Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 shows that in these circumstances the contract variation is deemed to be accepted.

    The claimant did not have to accept the monies paid against the entry of a plate which was not in the car park, but having done so, they have accepted a variation of contract.

    The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 is persuasive that when a ticket with an invalid number plate is issued in an ANPR car park it is the operator's responsibility.


    (the transcript is here http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html CS033)
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Dec 16, 11:51 AM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice one hoohoo, will have to remember that.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 27th Dec 16, 10:17 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    Thank you Coupon-mad and hoohoo for yours great posts!
    I hope you spend Christmas time well

    My new draft:
    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXXXXXX


    Between

    EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD
    (Claimant)
    -and-
    MY NAME
    (Defendant)


    DEFENCE STATEMENT



    PRELIMINARY MATTERS
    The Particulars of Claim are incoherent and lacking in any facts or concise, clear details that could identify a cause of action. In addition, the particulars mention a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) ''issued on 24/01/2016 (Issue Date)'' but I am not aware of any PCN from the Claimant with that date of issue. This is indicative of a robo-claim from BW Legal who have issued tens of thousands of generic claims for VCS and Excel Parking companies this year with no due diligence nor scrutiny of material facts, not least checking that there is a cause of action when in fact, these machines at the Peel Centre are already known by both Excel and BW Legal to be faulty. There is nothing in the particulars which could give rise to a claim in law.


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:


    1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. XXXXXXX. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at Peel Centre-Stockport on XX/01/2016.

    2. The car park in question is one where I having parked several times before, so I am familiar with ticket machines located there.


    3. On the material date I entered the car park. I went to pay for my ticket. I paid for my ticket and I entered my registration number and obtained the ticket that came out with Reg:E on it. I displayed that ticket. I paid an appropriate sum for me to park in the car park for up to three hours. I did not remain in the car park beyond three hours, and as far as I was concerned had fully complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.


    4. After I received PCN issued by Claimant I sent them copy of obtained ticket.

    a) They rejected that evidence, despite they were fully aware that the machines Excel use at the Peel Centre seem particularly prone to failure (Claim no. C8DP11F9 – Excel v Mrs S – 09/09/2016, Oldham Court & C8DP36F0 - Excel v Ms C - 17/10/16, Stockport Court.)

    b) They stated unequivocally that I failed to purchase a valid ticket as I entered the details ‘E’ rather than the required details, despite they uses ANPR and so they can reasonably be expected to know if any vehicle is or is not in the car park. By allowing someone to enter a number plate which they know or reasonably should know was not in the car park, they have accepted a contract variation. This is the parking equivalent of the "Battle of the forms". Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 shows that in these circumstances the contract variation is deemed to be accepted.

    The claimant did not have to accept the monies paid against the entry of a plate which was not in the car park, but having done so, they have accepted a variation of contract.

    The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 is persuasive that when a ticket with an invalid number plate is issued in an ANPR car park it is the operator's responsibility.

    5. I submit that the alleged contractual requirement regarding the VRN created by the Claimant’s signage, is voidable under the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, and as held in Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126, for the reason that it became impossible for me to ensure that the machine had recorded the correct VRN, through no fault of mine. This was a fault of the machine over which I had no control and in fact I did enter the correct VRN, so there was no breach from my actions. In the alternative, in Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes ‘reasonable endeavours’ to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

    6. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, BW Legal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £104.00 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report BW Legal to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true





    ………………………………………….. ……………………
    (Defendant) (Date)



    It looks much better in my Word document based on bargepole defence.
    I also done small change in hoohoo post: origin " By allowing me to enter..."
    now " By allowing someone to enter..."

    Thanks to You everything seems so strong and professional now
    Last edited by HarryJelonek; 27-12-2016 at 10:20 AM. Reason: error in writing
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Dec 16, 8:08 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would take 'that came out with Reg:E on it' out of your point #3.

    Instead, put that in a separate point 4(f):

    It is submitted that Pay and Display machines are far from infallible and will reset themselves and/or wrongly record keypad details on occasion. This is not a matter requiring any expert evidence, due to the existence of other county court transcripts from 2016. Other cases have proved on the balance of probabilities that the Peel Centre machines are prone to errors, causing fault codes and/or wrong details/dates being printed on tickets, through absolutely no fault of the driver. The ticket being printed with just an 'E' on it is indicative of an error (E - presumably = 'Error' code) similar to other cases in the public domain, where these Peel Centre machines have printed a ticket with a 'P' in one case and 'QQ' in another.

    This Claimant is of course, fully aware of this and it is beyond my understanding why they have seen fit to bring this claim. It appears to be wholly unreasonable and vexatious. If Excel decide to continue to a hearing I intend to seek my full costs in attending and my wasted time at £19 per hour on researching this matter, since I have done nothing to deserve this harassment and intimidation caused by their own machine fault, which they already know exists.

    I would also change this point 4 (b onwards) because you didn't put in a wrong VRN, they did!
    They (b) This Claimant has stated unequivocally that I that the driver failed to purchase a valid ticket as I implying that the driver must have entered the details ‘E’ rather than the VRNrequired details, despite they uses the fact that the Claimant uses ANPR and so they can reasonably be expected to know if any vehicle is or is not in the car park.

    (c) It is submitted that it is perverse to assume that the driver entered 'E' rather than their VRN when the driver is familiar with the car park, had paid and would have nothing to gain by doing so. Any fault on the part of the driver is denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof of this assertion.

    (d) By allowing someone to enter printing a display ticket with an error code number plate which they know or reasonably should know was not in the car park, they have accepted a contract variation. This is the parking equivalent of the "Battle of the forms". Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 shows that in these circumstances the contract variation is deemed to be accepted.
    (e) The claimant did not have to accept the monies paid against the wrongly recorded (due to their system error) entry of a plate which was not in the car park, but having done so, they have accepted and indeed created, a variation of contract. The Claimant produced and was responsible for the data on the ticket.

    (f) a new but related point, as I just suggested above

    (g) The case of Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 is persuasive that when a ticket with an invalid number plate is issued in an ANPR car park it is the operator's responsibility.

    To save the court's wasted time and to encourage the Claimant to discontinue this baseless claim, the final paragraph is reproduced here which covers this situation perfectly succinctly and does not need a re-run in court every week by a Claimant hoping that Defendants are not aware that the Peel Centre machine errors already being known and in the public domain:

    ''I am satisfied that the ticket then produced is the ticket that she has produced to the court. It was through no fault of hers that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss the claim.''





    ...and I noticed that your point #3 is full of 'I did this, I did that'. Are you going to defend this as admitted driver? Your choice, but be consistent, either decide now to do that, or to defend as keeper (if the driver has never been admitted) and IF defending as keeper only, add in the usual extra points:

    - that they have not shown any evidence of the driver's identity.

    - that Excel admit that they cannot rely on the keeper liability provisions from the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 because they choose not to use the mandatory wording in that statute.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 27-12-2016 at 8:25 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 28th Dec 16, 8:09 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    Thank you Coupon-mad Im working on it
    To be honest Im confused now about choice between admitted driver and keeper only. If I choose admitted driver will there be significant change at yours whole great work which you did already?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Dec 16, 2:18 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, the version so far is useable by an admitted driver because I don't think it mentions 'keeper liability' and the POFA.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to being 'the driver' at the hearing:

    Advantage:
    - You can speak honestly about what happened as an honest witness, which is what a Judge wants and expects (of course). Easier for you to focus on the main issue. You won't have to remember to say 'the driver' every time and you would face no risk that the Judge might draw an adverse inference if you refuse to name the driver (you don't have to, and in the POFA 2012 Bill, Parliament refused to make it an obligation, but a Judge might be old-school and want everything stated in black & white, with no 'grey' areas).


    Disadvantage:
    - If you admit to being the driver you can't use the argument that Excel do not use the POFA wording and can't hold you liable in law, as registered keeper. Normally that is an important defence point, for a keeper, v Excel.



    The thing is, Excel may have already seen this thread (or someone who feeds PPCs forum threads - for whatever nasty agenda - might have bookmarked and taken a screen shot of your first post above, already).

    So it's my view in this unusual case that you are best saying you were the driver and explaining what happened and relying upon the evidence that it is the machine at fault and you can't be held liable for that. I think you will find that easier and you should win on that basis. Your defence is quite simple in my view, and luckily you are supported by the cases already heard about the 'P' and 'QQ' issues.

    This Court Wizard provided by the BMPA as a free resource, should help (they even have a 'panic' button'!):

    http://www.bmpa.eu/court_wizard/

    Be aware that there are other stages requiring your action, Notice of Allocation being a vital one to understand what is required in terms of filing in good time, a Witness Statement AND the documents (photos, other court transcripts, your P&D ticket) that you intend to rely upon at the hearing.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-12-2016 at 2:21 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • HarryJelonek
    • By HarryJelonek 17th Jun 17, 11:17 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    HarryJelonek
    I'm pleased to say that that the claim has been dismissed in the County Court
    Special Thanks to Coupon-mad!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 17th Jun 17, 11:30 AM
    • 5,505 Posts
    • 7,079 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I'm pleased to say that that the claim has been dismissed in the County Court
    Special Thanks to Coupon-mad!
    Originally posted by HarryJelonek
    GREAT

    Tell us the full story please and the Parking Prankster
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 17th Jun 17, 7:09 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 1,526 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Fantastic news well done to you and coupon mad... And also Hoohoo who makes some great points above.

    Please could you give us a more detailed report of your day in court - before, during and after the hearing, especially important things the judge said about their case and why he or she dismissed it.

    Well done again !
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 10:03 PM
    • 47,975 Posts
    • 61,429 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm pleased to say that that the claim has been dismissed in the County Court
    Special Thanks to Coupon-mad!
    Originally posted by HarryJelonek
    Yay! Great news!

    Tell us more?! A court report is always good.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, 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

2,245Posts Today

8,306Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin