I've been following the old "ignore all letters" advice

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bethanyayres wrote: »

I haven't got letters for all of them - Excel seem to have bundled all charges together. I've only received 2 NTK's. And 2 different debt collection letters.

Today I asked Excel for a copy of all the paperwork they have sent me and they refused. So I'll be writing into them for a copy.

I have photographic evidence that they've lied about what time the driver was at the car park until. And when they've said the driver has walked off site there are receipts showing they were on site.

I'm based in Leeds.

Dont waste your time.

Concentrate on the legal aspects of the claim, look at the site details ive given and start working on your defence.

Dont bother to much with to much off what happened on the day etc, you need to pull their claim apart.

bethanyayres

Thank you everyone for the amazing advice - I'd have been so lost without you all. I've submitted my defence and I'll start collecting my evidence! xxx

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bethanyayres wrote: »

Thank you everyone for the amazing advice - I'd have been so lost without you all. I've submitted my defence and I'll start collecting my evidence! xxx

You have submitted your defence?

I hope you are joking? do you mean you have replied saying you will defend in full and asking for extra time to defend your claim,

Or do you mean you have actually put your defence in (if you have please post up, but i hope you havent as the is no way you would have done this correctly in this short space of time)

Stroma

Can you clarify what you've done

bethanyayres

I've copied the skeleton defence from the parking prankster link - was this wrong?

bethanyayres

1. I dispute the entirety of the claim

2. Excel Parking did not send me a letter before claim which was compliant with

practice directions. As a result the parties have not been able to able to

complete the exchange of information needed for me to file my full defence

and have not been able to complete Alternative Dispute Resolution.

3. Excel Parking have not filed enough information in the particulars of claim to

establish a cause of action. They have not indicated whether the claim is for a

contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass, although the wording

‘parking without authority’ indicates it is for trespass. They are not the landowner and have not established under what authority they bring the claim.

4. I therefore request the claim is stayed until Excel Parking provide full particulars of claim.

5. Parking cases explore complex areas of law. I estimate that any hearing will need between a half day to a day to hear all the issues.

6. Excel Parking never attend court personally, but use an advocate from LPC Law who offer a fixed fee service for around £250 for a 3 hour hearing (Excel Parking can confirm the exact amount) or more if the hearing is longer.

7. It is clear therefore, that as legal costs are not normally reclaimable in the

small claims court that Excel Parking have no sensible financial basis for

pursuing this claim as they will make a loss, whatever the result. Moreover,

this case will take a great deal of the court’s time.

8. I therefore propose we use the industry standard dispute mechanism which is to use Excel Parking’s appeal service first and then the independent

adjudication service POPLA next. This costs Excel Parking £27. However, they

will be better off financially than if we carry on to a hearing, whatever the

result.

9. POPLA is not normally binding on the motorist. However, I will agree to be

bound by the result of POPLA.

10. Excel Parking are known never to agree to use POPLA unless the court orders this. In the case of Excel Parking v Mr O, 3JD00791 at Croydon County Court, Judge Major ordered that

1. Proceedings are stayed [1]

2. Refer the dispute to POPLA in the first instance

11. The case then proceeded to POPLA [2]

12.A similar order would save costs for all parties and the court

13.In the event the court decides POPLA is not suitable then I request that the case be stayed for both parties to compete pre-court actions.

14.I will then file my defence based on the following points

a. Excel Parking are not the landowner, and have not shown they have the

landowner’s permission to take court action in their own name. They

therefore have no standing to bring the case

b. As this was a free car park, there is no consideration from driver to

Excel Parking and a contract therefore cannot be said to exist. At most,

there can only be a licence to park

c. I point out that as no parking was allowed at the time there can be no

contract as there was no consideration. The claim can only be for

trespass.

d. In the event Excel Parking claim they are charging for breach of contract

then according to well established case law; and also the British

Parking Association code of conduct, which they have agreed to obey;

and also which their standard contract with the landowner states they

must comply with; then any charge for breach of contract must be a

true pre-estimate of loss. The creditor for breach of contract, as shown

by Excel Parking’s standard contract, is the landowner. The landowner’s

loss in this situation is zero or negligible. As Excel Parking’s standard

contract does not pass on recovery costs to the landowner then the

landowner has made no loss from recovery costs. In any case, as

Excel Parking’s accounts show they make over 30% profit on charges for

breach of contract, the charge cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss

e. The signage is not sufficient to create a contract between Excel Parking and the motorist


[1] Proceedings are stayed’ means that the clock is no longer ticking. Everything is

put on hold until the reason that case is ‘stayed’ is over.

[2] At the time of writing this case was still active

For a contract to exist, there, there must be a genuine offer of consideration flowing from the offerer, in exchange for consideration from the offeree. In other words, one party provides something, which the other party pays for in some way. Where Excel Parking 'manages' a car park there is no consideration flowing from them. It is the landowner who allows you to park and not Excel Parking. When the car park is also a free car park, there is perhaps more importantly no consideration from the driver either. In short, an agreement for free parking cannot be a contract, it is just alicence.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bethanyayres wrote: »

I've copied the skeleton defence from the parking prankster link - was this wrong?

You should have researched and understood what you were doing.

Sorry but I give up helping people who rush into things
And just blindly copy stuff without having a clue about stuff.

Excel dont use lpc . Parking eye do. The idea is you read stuff take the bits you need and formulate your defence.

As you havent researched this how on earth are you going to cope In a court hearing.

The answer Is you wont. I suggest you actually investigate what you need to do, when you know what u are doing resubmit a defence that is appropriate

bethanyayres

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

You should have researched and understood what you were doing.

Sorry but I give up helping people who rush into things
And just blindly copy stuff without having a clue about stuff.

Please don't give up on me - I read the whole document and uploaded the skeleton defence as recommended - what have I done wrong?

bethanyayres

Forgive my naivety with the jargon. I'll do more research and amend my defence.

Thanks

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

bethanyayres wrote: »

Please don't give up on me - I read the whole document and uploaded the skeleton defence as recommended - what have I done wrong?

You should have taken the time to consider wheather the document in its entirety is relevent to excel as opposed to parking eye. For example excel don't use lpc