Excel/Roxburghe/Graham White Question

JGSStokesley

Last September, my wife parked in a free parking space in a Middlesbrough retail/leisure area car park run by Excel while she visited the cinema in the retail/leisure area with our daughter. Parking in certain spaces is free provided you are using the facilities there (which my wife was).

On returning to her car after the film, a guy from Excel presented her with a PCN. The reason - she had walked off the retail/leisure area to visit a shop for all of 20 minutes before going to the cinema. Some of the signs posted state that walking off the premises is not permitted.

We stupidly lodged an appeal to Excel that night by email on the grounds that the PCN was totally unreasonable. Of course it was rejected. It was only at that point that we searched this forum and others and learned that the best policy is just to ignore them. That's exactly what we have been doing and after a few further demands from Excel, the correspondence dried up. Now, we have started to receive rather threatening letters from Roxburghe and Graham White solicitors. Is the best current advice still to ignore?

Whilst my wife effectively admitted briefly walking off the leisure park, we have photographic evidence that shows only a portion of the posted signs mention that this is not permitted. In any case, how has Excel been damaged in this instance? Parking was free and my wife used the cinema (we have kept the tickets to prove it).

Apologies if this is a well trodden topic, but just wanted to check the latest advice.

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Yes, the advice for a September fake PCN is to ignore it so even though you appealed at first (a common mistake) it makes no difference and ignoring all the letters till the end of the scam is the right course.

Are you just happily playing snap with each letter against the pictures shown in the sticky thread 'PPC letter chains' near the top of the parking forum? You should be, it's very easy to ignore when you are expecting each rubbishy computer template letter!

And as for the 'left the site' allegation, it won't actually go to a small claim but if it did you could laugh at them and use (among other defence points) the VCS -v- Ibbotson small claim ruling which is linked on the PPC letter chains sticky thread under Vehicle Control Services. Read it now for a laugh to see what happens on the odd occasion when Simon Renshaw-Smith (owner of Excel and VCS) tried a small claim against someone who left the car park...

:rotfl:

JGSStokesley

Thank you Coupon-mad for this advice. The Ibbotson case does make for amusing reading. In that specific case, the key item that caused the case to be thrown out appeared to be the absence of a specific right of VCS in their contract with Wickes to bring court proceedings on Wickes' behalf against parking infringers. Surely VCS and their sister companies could have since remedied this situation by amending the contracts that they have with their clients to incorporate the missing right. Do you know if this is what they have done? Clearly in the Ibbotson case, even if VCS had the right to bring the case, there were other significant questions raised as to the amount of damages, interpretation of the contract between the motorist and VCS etc.

Stroma

For the most part contracts would not have altered, the reason is many things, including retailers not wanting third party companies taking their customers to court. There's also the fact that stricktly speaking only the landowner/leaseholder can take people to court for the loss. Free car park no loss

Umkomaas

JGSStokesley wrote: »

Thank you Coupon-mad for this advice. The Ibbotson case does make for amusing reading. In that specific case, the key item that caused the case to be thrown out appeared to be the absence of a specific right of VCS in their contract with Wickes to bring court proceedings on Wickes' behalf against parking infringers. Surely VCS and their sister companies could have since remedied this situation by amending the contracts that they have with their clients to incorporate the missing right. Do you know if this is what they have done? Clearly in the Ibbotson case, even if VCS had the right to bring the case, there were other significant questions raised as to the amount of damages, interpretation of the contract between the motorist and VCS etc.

There's a rather large assumption on your part that the car park owner would entertain a PPC suddenly demanding a change to the contract. I'd guess most would refer to their legal departments who might study the Ibbotson case before any agreement. I think the toothbrush might ring some warning bells :rotfl:

JGSStokesley

Great points, thanks.