County Court Claim from Excel Parking

Get-Out-Of-Debt

Hi all, as thought may happen, Excel have decided to chose me to start a claim in Northampton. Naturally I will defend this. Seems they think I may be easier to tackle due to my PoPLA appeal failing, don't think the GPEOL that appeared on the Case Summary completed by Excel was read by the assessor.

Whilst I have raised this point with PoPLA earlier this month, still waiting for a response, what would be the basis of my defence be.

I wonder if this is a new policy by Excel as I was not put down debt recovery nor receive a LBCCC?

Redx

my advice is to obtain and read the 2 parking prankster court guides and checkout the recent court case pdf,s on his site too

I appreciate they are PE but they are bound to be useful against Excel too

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Get out of debt, pm me your location, depending on where you are located on this earth you might get some help in person at a hearing

HO87

I'm slightly puzzled. You say that you have not received a LBCCC and yet in this post in an earlier thread you state that you had received a Notice of Intended Court Proceedings letter. If so, then whether you consider it was one or not a LBCCC, indeed, whether it fulfilled the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct is at this stage somewhat irrelevant as it seems that Excel have carried out their threat they gave you at least some notice of.

As for your defence, we need some detail of the circumstances of the PCN issue and we can then start to point you in the right direction.

Get-Out-Of-Debt

Yeah, you're right of course, IMHO the Notice of Intended Court Proceedings was a 'may' type letter which seemed generic - a threat in hoping you would pay but take your point.

My situation was that I waited in my car for around 15-minutes with my then 6-month baby and didn't see any clear signs at the entrance. As I had a child in the car I wasn't prepared to go looking for signs.

I then simply drove away once my partner had returned after picking something up from a nearby store. Several weeks later I got the PCN, appealed to the PPC - refused (as expected) then appealed to PoPLA.

I note in Excel's case summary to PoPLA that they state a PCN is triggered after 15-minutes, I was recorded (by ANPR) as being on site for 18, so just three minutes over this 'grace' period. So thats effectively £33.00 per-minute without actually leaving the vehicle :mad:

Redx

obviously the punishment does not "fit" the "crime" , but not leaving the vehicle has no relevance here , the vehicle was on "their land" for 18 minutes with no valid ticket

I am surprised that you did not win at popla on the usual 3 winning points of , not a gpeol , no contract (no standing) and bad signage

if this was the Peel centre or similar then they time you from the anpr at the entrance to the anpr at the exit, check for a valid ticket with your reg on it and issue a pcn if none of it tallies

clearly the £100 or whatever is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it never or rarely is

their contracts tend to be heavily redacted so may have "no standing" if brought up in court, and martin cutts won in court on poor signage a couple of years ago

bondy_lad

redx, you are perfectly correct about martin cutts winning on the poor signage in situ at the peel centre,sadly as i have posted numerous times recently the signs are 100% clear and readable now,it does pain me to say this,but its true.hopefully the op will still spank them though.

Get-Out-Of-Debt

Redx, when I was told it was disallowed I was unhappy. Despite sending photographs of this site, the Assessor didn't seem to even make reference to them neither how Excel rebuffed my claim of 'excessive charges' by giving the GPEoL speil about liqudated losses etc etc.

Redx

was this assessor the infamous farah ?

a few have gone pear shaped with that assessor, hopefully your popla appeal appeal will prevail

not sure where your car park contravention actually was, but as bondy lad rightly says, the peel centre , stockport have much better signs now, albeit I am not saying they are fully compliant as I am no expert in those matters

the problem here is that had you stayed 18 minutes or 10 hours the charge would have been the same , so the cost per minute may seem relevant but they allege you owe them say £100 for breaking their "rules" , they dont cost it on a pay per minute basis

I am in no way condoning their charges as they are clearly punitive , just trying to outline where they are coming from, as you were on the car park for 18 minutes

if you win at popla or in court thats great by me, because I agree with your common sense should prevail ideas, but they never do with excel or pe or the others who are just plain greedy

SevenTowers

There have already been a couple of court cases that PPCs have lost after winning at POPLA, I know Bargepole has an interest in one that was adjourned after the Judge had said she was not minded to overturn a POPLA decision, but I haven't heard the outcome of that one.

The compelling case is Clark

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/parkingeye-v-clarke-transcript-donated.html

I do not see how any PPC could ever win again after being challenged with that transcript.

Coupon-mad

You lost at POPLA due to the wrong words being used in your appeal, it sounds like, so please do better research for court or you could lose that as well when there is no need. Excel don't own the car parks they operate in, and they sometimes (allegedly) receive money merely as a paid agent and not granting them any standing to sue - so there are some very strong defence arguments to use.

A claim of 'excessive charges' IS NOT THE SAME AS THE MAGIC WORDS 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'!