Excel parking unfair fine

Tallulah12_2

Hi.
My husband works for the NHS and works in three different areas during the week.
At one of these when you park in the carpark you give your registration number to reception to show that you are allowed to park there.
He got a PCN from Excel which he appealed and sent evidence to show his registration number on the list of vehicles allowed to park with the date on.
We have just had a letter to say that the 'evidence is insufficient as this does not prove that this is the list from the day of the contravention as our Attendant checked the list before issuing the ticket'
Where do we go from here and does anyone have any experience of Excel?

The_Slithy_Tove

Tallulah12 wrote: »

Where do we go from here and does anyone have any experience of Excel?

You simply ignore all further correspondence from Excel, or any debt collectors/solicitors (none of whom have any powers to do anything) they may use.

You owe nothing. You had permission from the landowner to be there. You do not need to prove anything to Excel. End of.

It's not your fault, or your problem that Excel are incompetent.

Coupon-mad

If you search this sub-forum for the word Excel you will see how many times we have mentioned that company on theis forum! See my signature, just click on the breadcrumb trail link I mention to take you back to the sub-forum index. On the right of the forum view, above the threads, is the heading 'search this forum'. Put in Excel!

Anyway, like all the other posters on this board, you have a fake PCN. Ignore it. Have you realised yet that there is no 'appeal' (as if??!!).

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice for tickets received up until the end of September is to ignore them as long as it's your car (not a company, hire or lease car). The registered keeper will just receive the usual threatograms and can play a nice game of snap with them.

Tick off the threatening letters here.

Watchdog clip with expert Solicitor's opinion here.

Barrister's opinion here.

Show your friends & family the links and make sure the registered keeper is ready to play their game of snap!

RENEGADE_2

Excel = private parking company (PPC)

Yes we all have experience with PPCs. They're all the same and Excel is no hero that defies the odds.

Not that I recommend openly abusing the private parking loophole, it is a plain and simple fact that their threats are empty and can be safely ignored. See the short watchdog clip taken in 2011, Coupon-mad has provided a link.

We would have suggested not even writing to them. Failing that, atleast do not use that dreadful word "appeal" because it plays into their hands. The fact is simple, your husband's reasoning would be good enough in court to satisfy the judge that he did not openly flout conditions. To that end, it matters precious little if Excel reject your husband's plea - what matters is that they seek a figure that exceeds their losses and Contract Law forbids this practice. It is seen as one citizen penalising another which is illegal.

So if your husband were to write again, he need only say:
Having investigated your claim, I have found that the demand is wholly unlawful and not redolent of company losses and I hereby deny your claim and declare an end to your prevarication with immediate effect. If you believe me to have a debt to your company, you are formally invited to take the matter to adjudication whereby we shall meet before a competent court. You are instructed not to write to me again concerning this issue, not even so much as to acknowledge this letter. Any mail detected from your office shall be resealed, refused and returned to sender and if this continues, you will be reported for harassment.

Yours sincerely
**your husband** <--Don't sign

Don't be afraid to be masterful with those pigs. They are not polite human beings and they are not there to provide a service for the visitors to the hospital. They are there to generate revenue for themselves and the Trust by bullying the vulnerable. They are bound by Contract Law and this differs from the Road Traffic Act which governs council on public land.

But you can take the easier option and ignore. Matter shall shall-destruct after approximately fourth debt collector threat.

RENEGADE_2

Also, your husband much make sure that payroll do not fiddle with his wages. They will land themselves in serious trouble if they attempt that stunt, provided he take the necessary step of filling out an ET1 form for the Employment Tribunal and declare Unlawful Deduction of Wages. They'll soon need a change of nappies once they get notification of a hearing.

Bircho

RENEGADE wrote: »

Also, your husband much make sure that payroll do not fiddle with his wages. They will land themselves in serious trouble if they attempt that stunt, provided he take the necessary step of filling out an ET1 form for the Employment Tribunal and declare Unlawful Deduction of Wages. They'll soon need a change of nappies once they get notification of a hearing.

Even if it is explicitly stated in his Contract of Employment?

Coupon-mad

Bircho wrote: »

Even if it is explicitly stated in his Contract of Employment?

That's almost unheard of in fact. We have seen loads of cases like this and the car use t&cs say stuff about paying/being responsible for any fines or penalties for traffic offences from authorities.

Whereas a fake PCN is just a personal invoice to a driver; not a fine, not a penalty, not an offence and not from any authority. Police and Council tickets are the real penalty charges, and usually that is all these t&cs cover.

ManxRed

[rant] This sort of thing gets my goat good and proper.

Its like a bloke walks up to you in a pub and says "Oy, you, you owe me £50!"

"No I don't."

"Yes you do. Remember when I put that sign up in here last week saying 'anyone wearing a blue jumper will owe me £50'??"

"That's stupid, I'm not paying."

"Well in that case I'll send you a letter"

"And I'll ignore it."

So the bloke sends a letter, and the other bloke rightly ignores it because its plain daft. The first bloke then takes him to court, and the judge just laughs, and the bloke ends up not getting £50 but walking out of the court with his tail between his legs.

Well, this is no different, except the bloke writes to the other bloke's employer, and the employer looks at it and thinks "Hey, not only will I pay this, but I'll illegally deduct it from his salary."

It's insane.

[/rant]

Bircho

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's almost unheard of in fact. We have seen loads of cases like this and the car use t&cs say stuff about paying/being responsible for any fines or penalties for traffic offences from authorities.

Whereas a fake PCN is just a personal invoice to a driver; not a fine, not a penalty, not an offence and not from any authority. Police and Council tickets are the real penalty charges, and usually that is all these t&cs cover.

Don't think it is that rare to be honest. Will see lots of it in most employer policies where car parking is provided for staff that is monitored by Private Parking Companies. And it is certainly in most Vehicle Policy documents that I have seen for company drivers. Indeed, we are having to change our policy to take account of Keeper Liability in the new Freedoms Act.

Bircho

ManxRed wrote: »

[rant] This sort of thing gets my goat good and proper.

Its like a bloke walks up to you in a pub and says "Oy, you, you owe me £50!"

"No I don't."

"Yes you do. Remember when I put that sign up in here last week saying 'anyone wearing a blue jumper will owe me £50'??"

"That's stupid, I'm not paying."

"Well in that case I'll send you a letter"

"And I'll ignore it."

So the bloke sends a letter, and the other bloke rightly ignores it because its plain daft. The first bloke then takes him to court, and the judge just laughs, and the bloke ends up not getting £50 but walking out of the court with his tail between his legs.

Well, this is no different, except the bloke writes to the other bloke's employer, and the employer looks at it and thinks "Hey, not only will I pay this, but I'll illegally deduct it from his salary."

It's insane.

[/rant]

Was the sign on the entrance as your walked in next to the one that said buy one get one free on all shots of Whisky? !!

Coupon-mad

Bircho wrote: »

Don't think it is that rare to be honest. Will see lots of it in most employer policies where car parking is provided for staff that is monitored by Private Parking Companies. And it is certainly in most Vehicle Policy documents that I have seen for company drivers.

Indeed, we are having to change our policy to take account of Keeper Liability in the new Freedoms Act.

Hmmm...well obviously you would need to tweak it but it's only a matter of naming the driver and then you are not liable, FULL STOP, AT ALL. It's hardly a big policy change that's needed, and certainly not some punitive rubbish stitching up drivers re a scam fake PCN...so hope your company hasn't misunderstood the legislation and done that.

All it needs is simply to provide the driver's details as per the advice from the Trade Body for Lease Car firms, the BVRLA. LINK:

QUOTE
Protection of Freedoms Act

The Protection of Freedoms Act, has now been approved by Parliament and will ban clamping on private land from 1 October 2012. Successful lobbying by the BVRLA has ensured that vehicle rental and leasing companies will retain the ability to have private parking fines transferred to the customers who incur them. To view an extract of the Act which refers to rental and leasing companies click the link below:

Protection of Freedoms Act

The BVRLA will now be working with the British Parking Association to ensure that customers' details can be passed to private parking firms in a simple way, without the need for complex evidential requirements such as copies of rental and lease agreements.

Further information on road traffic offences can be found here.

Contact:

Amanda Brandon, legal and policy executive

Telephone: 01494 545701''

Email: [EMAIL="amanda&#64;bvrla.co.uk"]amanda@bvrla.co.uk[/EMAIL]

QUOTE



So if whether it's a Leased vehicle or a company owned vehicle it's only one standard letter to name the driver & give an address for service of letters, that's the only thing needed. Your involvement ends there.