Excel parking- advice on their reply please

taffy056

trisontana wrote: »

I see that Bonzerboy has deleted his posts!

Don't think so, users don't have the ability to completely delete posts , so either he has been banned or a board guide or moderator has deleted his post. Either way he's gone now.

taffy056

trisontana wrote: »

I see that Bonzerboy has deleted his posts!

Don't think so, users don't have the ability to completely delete posts , so either he has been banned or a board guide or moderator has deleted his post. Either way he's gone now. On second thoughts I can see a delete button so maybe he did lol

give_them_FA

Yes you can delete posts. I did not see it but it sounds like "Perky" has opened up yet another identity? He has more identities than a Chinese social security scammer, lol

michelle040688

Bit confused here as there are two different cases going on. I am the registered keeper and driver of the car, does that make it any different?
Thanks

Coupon-mad

No, just ignore any private parking ticket and play 'PPC snap' with each threatogram that matches or top thread.

See my signature - it's only one click back to see the forum index with the sticky thread at the top 'PPC letters & threats' being the one to read. Also watch the Watchdog clip on there.

Nick1001_2

Can I update you and get more advice? Excel are still pursuing the remaining money. They have 'kindly' brought something to my attention. They say " we bring to your attention CPR 31.18 and the Norwich Pharmacal Procedure. May we refer you to the recent case of Excel v Alphabet (GB) Limited in the Leeds District Registry of the High Court which granted an order in our favour which required the Registered Owner of the vehicle to disclose the identity of the driver."
Any views about this piece of case law? IS it balloney? Given I am not the registered keeper (being a lease car) I assume it is not relevant anyway?
Thanks

give_them_FA

Yes. It is baloney. That is their way of trying to baffle you with bullsh*t. It take it this is yet another template letter in the series?

And as you are not the registered keeper or owner, you have rightly assessed it as being total nonsense.

Let the idiots talk to themselves.

HO87

Nick1001 wrote: »

Can I update you and get more advice? Excel are still pursuing the remaining money. They have 'kindly' brought something to my attention. They say " we bring to your attention CPR 31.18 and the Norwich Pharmacal Procedure. May we refer you to the recent case of Excel v Alphabet (GB) Limited in the Leeds District Registry of the High Court which granted an order in our favour which required the Registered Owner of the vehicle to disclose the identity of the driver."
Any views about this piece of case law? IS it balloney? Given I am not the registered keeper (being a lease car) I assume it is not relevant anyway?
Thanks

The application by Excel succeeded and Alphabet were indeed ordered to identify the driver.

However, as much as one might expect it Excel do not provide the full facts to enable anyone to make an informed decision.

Firstly, Part 31.18 of the Civil Procedure Rules does NOT apply to the small claims track i.e. the Small Claims Court which is where any of their cases are destined to go. They omit to mention that Part 31.1(2) very importantly says:

This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track.

Secondly, the order that we believe Excel obtained (although we have been unable to get any independent evidence of it) in the Alphabet case was a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO). I believe that the case was heard in Autumn 2010 - hardly that recent.

In brief, a NPO is an order that a court may make for a third party who has facilitated the commision of a wrong by another party to disclose who they are. A NPO was originally designed to obtain documents and Alphabet, being a car hire company, naturally had documents to show who the user of the car was at the time of the alleged wrong.

Thirdly, Excel also attempted on two occasions during 2011 to obtain a NPO against a private individual and failed on each occasion (once because they themselves failed to appear at the court). The disproportionate costs that would be incurred by them in making an application for a NPO ensure that it is not something to be considered a weekly or even an annual event.

In the extremely unlikely event that they did issue proceedings for a NPO I would be very interested to hear Excel's arguments in favour of describing a registered keeper of a vehicle by merely allowing someone to use a car "facilitated" their allegedly breaching a contract. Were this so, the same logic would ensure that every gun manufacturer could be pursued in respect of gun murders and car makers would be hauled to court everytime there was a road fatality.

Boiling this down to gravy it is typical bully-boy tactics.

give_them_FA

Just the usual PPC bullsh*t then, HO.:rotfl::rotfl:

HO87

give_them_FA wrote: »

Just the usual PPC bullsh*t then, HO.:rotfl::rotfl:

Indeed, I entirely agree but some posters will still sit there are think about the fact that Excel have quoted law and a specific case. They couldn't possibly be lying, could they?

And of course they aren't lying but are not providing the full truth. Calling it BS will, on occasion convey the point but it's sometimes better to deconstruct their points rather than simply jumping up and down on them.

We should be encouraging people to ask themselves why it is that these supposedly respectable companies need to continually twist the truth or at least subvert it. You and I may know what the score is but the majority of posters here do not.

Its certainly easier and quicker to simply type in "It's all BS" as a convenient shorthand but there needs to be a balance with fuller explanations.