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
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 29th Jan 17, 6:45 PM
    • 186Posts
    • 164Thanks
    claretmad62
    Excel BW again
    • #1
    • 29th Jan 17, 6:45 PM
    Excel BW again 29th Jan 17 at 6:45 PM
    Hi to all

    Spent quite a bit of time reading others threads, finding it all a big learning curve.


    State of play, Excel along with BW currently chasing my wife for a PCN from early 2012 (pre PoFA) On her behalf I have been corresponding with BW and at the moment we are 20 days into County Court sending our initial defence to the claimant. Been on with the WS, as it's over 5 years ago we've not got a clue who was driving....quite a few people have used my wife's car historically. There seems to be different views on what should be in the WS, and what we should take to the hearing as our court bundle. As it's pretty PoFA, what do you think our plan of defence/ attack should be


    Cheers
Page 12
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Jun 17, 8:21 AM
    • 1,429 Posts
    • 2,664 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    just checking that doesn't mean my SA
    Correct. SA is 3 days before in higher courts but you can hand it in on the day for County Court.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Jun 17, 12:28 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,744 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I wouldn't hand it in on the day, the judge might say it can't be relied upon. Although you'd say it is an aid for the court and doesn't contain anything new.
    Best to serve it 3/4 days before, as you would if a SA had been ordered (they are ordered as standard in all non-small claims cases).
    Don't forget to do a costs schedule - this MUST be served/filed 24 hours before.
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 8th Jun 17, 6:33 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Just arrived home to the welcome sight of the Claimants WS, not got scanner at home but will do tomorrow at work.First things that jump out are some bizarre photos, one showing a woman (not the defendant) walking toward a ticket machine. And most importantly, the PCN value still at £100. WS written by a Nabella Ahmed.
    Last edited by claretmad62; 08-06-2017 at 6:35 PM.
    cm62
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 9th Jun 17, 10:07 AM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Morning all, scanner not working at work. Had to take photos of everything and go the long way. Anyway all BWL W.S bundle attached (ex 16-17) are photos of car reg so haven't bothered attaching. Needless to say, your expert comments and response will be very much appreciated. I would like to get everything in by Tuesday, so your help is very much appreciated.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/in99h2fdf4k9ccn/AAAdKM0kyubzqnjswo9Eycw3a?dl=0
    cm62
    • Molts
    • By Molts 9th Jun 17, 6:32 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    Do not count me as an expert in the slightest and certainly wait for expert opinion but the "Landowner Witness Statement" is a complete joke and would have been a surefire winner at independent adjudicator stage had it been available at the time.

    Notwithstanding the fact that it is written by the operator themselves it is undated and shows no indication of how long the contract runs for. If this was to stand up in court I would happily do a couple of laps naked around Cavendish Retail Park and park myself outside the confines of a marked bay!
    • Molts
    • By Molts 9th Jun 17, 6:37 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 9th Jun 17, 8:14 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Thanks Molts, I'm hoping Coupon-mad and others have time to pitch in with some responses I can add into my S.A.
    cm62
    • Molts
    • By Molts 9th Jun 17, 8:27 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    I have no doubt they will be along as soon as practicable to tear the bundle apart
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 9th Jun 17, 11:05 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Yes...of course your right Molts, I think most have been in this position. Just feel the need to dot the I's and cross the T's...bit nervy at this point. Unsure on how to respond to the Claimants WS ...hence the request for help.
    cm62
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Jun 17, 2:41 PM
    • 40,194 Posts
    • 80,283 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    It looks like Elliott vs Loake may be mentioned. This has been debunked so many times that it is difficult to understand why scammers still try to use it in a small claims court.

    CPC vs AJH films has been debunked as mentioned above.

    Witness statement is from and on behalf of Excel. No witness statement from the landowner.

    That the IPC is an equivalent of the BPA is a downright lie. It is run by the same people that run the IAS (or did at the material time) and the same solicitors that take people to court. Nothing independent or impartial there at all.

    The claimant ignored the PCN. Only the driver was liable so there was no requirement for the keeper, who is not and never been liable, to acknowledge the PCN.

    The defendant had the option to appeal. Lies. PoPLA did not exist at the material time when the alleged parking event took place. (Did not exist before Oct 2012.)

    The claimant has incurred costs due to the defendant unwillingness to contest the PCN. Bollards. The defendant was never liable, there was no requirement to contest, and in any case there was no appeals system in place for a keeper to appeal PCNs from pre POFA 2012.
    What I'm trying to say as that PoPLA did not exist before Oct 2012 so could not be retrospectively applied to pre Oct 2012 events.

    The defendant's reliance on POFA is misconceived. Bollards. The defendant isn't relying on POFA because as the claimant admits, it didn't exist at the material time. The defendant is relying on the law and Acts of Parliament that were in place at the time, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable.

    There is a reference to the PCN asking for the driver's identity. There was no requirement in law, or obligation to do so as no law existed, or exists today requiring this request to be complied with.


    There are numerous references to the defendant failing to do something or other, but quite simply there was no requirement in law for them to do anything since they were never liable.

    There are several gender changes. The defendant is referred to both as he/him and she/her. This is rude and unprofessional. It aso reinforces the fact that the scammers don't know who was driving, and therefore don't know who may have been liable at the material time.

    The biggy of course is that this was all pre POFA so the keeper cannot be held liable.

    Post 12 of this thread gives proof of when the POFA 2012 was enacted as far as private parking charges are concerned, just in case the judge wants proof.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72403388&posted=1#post72403388
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 10-06-2017 at 2:44 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
    • Molts
    • By Molts 10th Jun 17, 3:21 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    There you are! If there is anything credible left of the bundle now Fruitcake has destroyed it I would be very surprised
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 10th Jun 17, 3:34 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Can't thank you enough Fruitcake for responding and your good self Molts, I'd seen on other threads where you guys had written responses against the numbered comments of the Claimants WS... So was assuming similar, apologies if I mis-interpreted.
    cm62
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Jun 17, 3:58 PM
    • 40,194 Posts
    • 80,283 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I only skimmed it , but you should go through it line by line and rebut everything they say.
    If they mention POFA, or appeals, or PoPLA, you say it didn't exist at the time of the alleged event, and obviously therefore cannot be retrospectively applied.

    There is a comment I couldn't completely make out but it was something like, I am instructed that the signs shown here were in place at the time, or similar. Just ask for the metadata and time/date stamps to prove this. You just say I don't believe these signs were there at the time. They certainly aren't there now.

    Just rebut everything and everything and ask for proof of every comment they make or document or sign they rely on.

    Check information at Companies house. When was the company formed? What is the company name and company number and check that was it the same at the time of the alleged event? For example, was it once Parking Scammers Corp and is now Parking Scammers Inc, and was the company number changed if the name changed.
    I'm only throwing ideas out here, and you don't really need that detail as I'm sure you will win on it being pre-POFA, but the more nails you can hammer in the less chance there is for them. Just concentrate on the most important stuff first and then work on other stuff if you have time.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 10-06-2017 at 4:06 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
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 10th Jun 17, 4:09 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    I have written something already, to the effect of that's not possible(signage) as my PCN states £60.00 fine discounted to £40.00. Your photos of the sign clearly show £100 & £60 . I will take a look over CM's input into Lamilads "me and excel at war" thread. CM went thru each of the Claimants remarks and pretty much destroyed them. I would imagine that as most of you allude to. The Claimants WS are pretty much 95% generic. I can't seem to get the link up from Lamilads thread showing the Excel WS. Would like to put that up against mine and then fill in the gaps. So if anyone knows how to get the link it would be appreciated. Cheers Fruitcake
    cm62
    • Molts
    • By Molts 10th Jun 17, 4:48 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5478608&highlight=lamilad&page=3# 59

    Wow weird. Post #59...
    Last edited by Molts; 10-06-2017 at 4:50 PM. Reason: Further info
    • claretmad62
    • By claretmad62 10th Jun 17, 4:52 PM
    • 186 Posts
    • 164 Thanks
    claretmad62
    Tried that earlier this morning, says link broken when I try to open in new tab
    cm62
    • Molts
    • By Molts 10th Jun 17, 4:54 PM
    • 62 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    Molts
    Oh I think he has disabled it after finding out Excel were trawling the forums and tried to use his Pepipoo info against him. Hopefully Lamilad will see this and be able to get the info you need to you.

    Maybe a PM to him?
    Last edited by Molts; 10-06-2017 at 4:55 PM. Reason: Further info
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Jun 17, 5:58 PM
    • 40,194 Posts
    • 80,283 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I have written something already, to the effect of that's not possible(signage) as my PCN states £60.00 fine discounted to £40.00. Your photos of the sign clearly show £100 & £60 . I will take a look over CM's input into Lamilads "me and excel at war" thread. CM went thru each of the Claimants remarks and pretty much destroyed them. I would imagine that as most of you allude to. The Claimants WS are pretty much 95% generic. I can't seem to get the link up from Lamilads thread showing the Excel WS. Would like to put that up against mine and then fill in the gaps. So if anyone knows how to get the link it would be appreciated. Cheers Fruitcake
    Originally posted by claretmad62
    Excellent. So you can rebut their bit where they say they have been informed that the signs are the ones in place at the time. This is an obvious lie and is a cynical attempt to try to get more out of you than the original PCN given to the driver.

    They have tried to make you look unreasonable. Now you make them out to be unreasonable in return, but your biggest stick is still the fact that the POFA didn't exist at the time of the alleged event.
    They have stated that are not relying on the POFA 2012, so you want to know what they are relying on in order to allege the keeper is liable.
    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
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Jun 17, 6:11 PM
    • 40,194 Posts
    • 80,283 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    They know that Elliott vs Loake is not relevant in a small claims court because (I think) they have been involved in cases where judges have said this and similarly they know that CPS vs AJH films has also been rubbished by judges. Therefore they know full well that they cannot hold the keeper liable or assume the keeper is the driver.
    Therefore they are being unreasonable by the whole shebang and are wasting the court's time knowing these points do not hold water.

    Just keep hammering how unreasonable they are at every point. They are vexatious and know it.

    Point out that a solicitor's first duty is to the court. The Parking Prankster reported in the last few days that one solicitor decided not to continue a case once he knew how unreasonable the case was. Why aren't this bunch carrying out the same duty of care to their clients?
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 10-06-2017 at 6:16 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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Jun 17, 6:33 PM
    • 14,040 Posts
    • 22,053 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    similarly they know that CPS vs AJH films has also been rubbished by judges
    Confirmed at appeal, therefore now carries 'persuasive' weight. And given that this decision was at a BWL/Excel case, they should not be using this argument again.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/motorist-wins-appeal-cps-vs-ajh-films.html
    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.
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

2,394Posts Today

8,423Users online

Martin's Twitter