Excel parking stockport non statutory route

spacey2012

I would reply thank you for the acknowledgement you failed to comply with POFA.
Therefore the registered Keeper rejects liability under POFA.
I suggest you write to the Driver.
Start a Mr AAAAAAA Aardvark (deed poll) in the UK phone directory and work your way down.
Good luck.
The registered Keeper.

Coupon-mad

I would say tick 3 out of 4 boxes on the POPLA webpage (not the stolen car one but all 3 others are applicable).


And make this your point #1 as it will likely be your winner:




1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The PCN records the duration of stay at 41 minutes, whilst the tariff set by the operator for a 2 hour stay is just £1. Excel is asking for a charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid early. This far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the time my car was parked there. The charge cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Indeed I suspect in Excel's contract it will show how much they are presumably paid by their client for the 'service' they ostensibly provide and so it will be interesting to see how exactly Excel try to show they have made a loss at this site that they do not own, to the tune of £100 by virtue of one alleged parking event for 41 minutes. The most that could be justified would be just £1 in accordance with the published tariff. Excel must show the whole charge flows from the single parking event in question, not including tax-deductible - and paid-for by the landowner client - business operational costs and not including frivolous costs such as hefty 'write off' allowances.



And move this and the rest down in the numbering so this will now be 2, and I suggest this addition:


2. The Operator failed to comply with schedule 4 of POFA 2012 - so there is no keeper liability and Excel misrepresented authority under POFA (breach of CPUTR2008).

Excel wrote to me as the registered keeper on the 18th November 2013; a letter written 15 days after the contravention date of 3rd November 2013 and yet it had to be in my hands by the previous day if keeper liability was to be possible to establish. I appealed explaining they were outside the timescale for service of an NTK, as set out in the POFA 2012 to maintain their right to keeper liability. Excel rejected my appeal (copy enclosed) and then went on to explain they were pursuing me under a 'non statutory route' but then still included a paragraph alleging 'Please be aware that as you have failed to provide us with the full name and uk serviceable address for the driver within the 28 day period stipulated on the PCN, we are now within our rights to recover from the registered keeper under the POFA 2012.'

This letter misrepresents the legal position by attempting to lend a level of lawful authority to the charge that the Excel themselves had admitted did not apply (in the same letter!). This letter breaches the CPUTR2008 because it is a misleading contractual statement. However, I am sure the POPLA Assessor will not miss the fact that Excel have admitted they have no keeper liability and are only pursuing the charge under a 'non-statutory route' and yet have given a POPLA appeal code to me...the keeper. I can truthfully say to POPLA 'I am not liable' and Excel have helped to make my case for me in this regard.

Oils

Excellent thank you for helping and your advice...I'll keep you updated on how I get on. Thanks again

Oils

Thanks for all the help on this, I won my case and the the PCN is now cancelled! Another victory over excel!

Stroma

Great news can you give the wording used by popla, we are keeping tabs on popla appeal wins and losses - thanks

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

yay well done and thanks for updating

Redx

was it an adjudication ? or did Excel cancel or offer no evidence pack ?

if its a decision, please copy and paste a redacted copy of it into the POPLA DECISIONS thread

thanks

and well done m8

Oils

In my email from popla is starts with all the details and then states the assessor has determined that the appeal be allowed for the reasons set out, which are....

Reasons for the Assessors Determination

It is the Appellants case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.

The operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows that what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option to allow the appeal.

Is that what you needed?

4consumerrights

Yes that's fine - was there an Assessor's name or was it the Chief Adjudicator.

An well done by the way - a cut and dried case here!

bondy_lad

brilliant news,another one in the eye for the scum known as excell.