Excel signage in Prestwich impossible to read, IAS thinks not....!

Herzlos

traceynob wrote: »

I'm not sure I will be sane after 6 years of this.......

You won't get 6 years of this. They'll give up in 6 months, but there's always a risk it'll come back within the 6 years if they feel they can get away with it.

traceynob

Anyone got any experience/examples of recent Excel court cases, apart from the famous ones e.g. Hetherington-Jakeman & Martin Cutts.

I did once find a website showing a list of current parking cases being heard in County Court but can't find it now .....

UPDATE: Now found it, list of daily court cases can be found at https://www.bmpa.eu, Excel apparently went to court 22 times in 2014.

traceynob

Here's a summary of the response from SRA regarding my complaint about the IAS adjudicator and their dodgy appeal decision........

The SRA do not regulate individual solicitors in relation to acting in another capacity, such as an Adjudicator for parking ticket appeals, unless it related to a serious integrity concern. In addition, they are unable to determine whether a decision is correct or not as this would amount to a legal issue. Also the website for the IAS states that none of their solicitors act as Adjudicators......! However, such information is very important to the SRA as it can be used, with reports from other sources, to identify trends and behaviour. This may result in follow-up action in the future.

So they can't/won't help unless there is a trend, i.e. shedloads of complaints from disgruntled motorists

hoohoo

traceynob wrote: »

Anyone got any experience/examples of recent Excel court cases, apart from the famous ones e.g. Hetherington-Jakeman & Martin Cutts.

I did once find a website showing a list of current parking cases being heard in County Court but can't find it now .....

UPDATE: Now found it, list of daily court cases can be found at https://www.bmpa.eu, Excel apparently went to court 22 times in 2014.

Most Excel and VCS cases are being stayed at the moment until the Beavis judgment is out. Usually this is because Excel are writing to the court.

traceynob

Quick update, after three letters demanding payment from DRP, I emailed them saying, "any debt is denied, please do not contact me again until your client (Excel Parking) can provide evidence.......that the signage can be seen & read during the hours of darkness when the parking event took place". They emailed back six photos, five of them just showed the car parked in the space and no signage, whilst the other amusingly showed the car with a sign in the distant background, the sign itself isn't very clear but what is clear is that the car park (and sign) was unlit, and the sign was up an 8 foot post and you couldn't even see the text, never mind read it. Lol!
However, despite proving exactly the opposite, they now keep sending me emails robotically telling me...... the signage was sufficient, please pay £160......
I've reported them to Financial Ombudsman and I shall now ignore anything except a letter before action

The_Deep

Send them a few invoices for your time, and a LBA. Play them at their own game, keep challenging them to take you to court. Keep asking fpr clarifications, be relentless, hammer them. If it does nothing else, it will waste their time, and build a paper trail, courts love paper trails.

Parking-Prankster

You already complained to the IAS. Did you get a reply? If not, you could also raise a complaint with the new lead adjudicator of the IAS, stating that Excel provided false evidence by stating the charge was contractual, but are now stating it is for breach.

Also that the assessor was incompetent for
ignoring 2 appeal points
ruling the charge was contractual
ruling the signage was visible when al phots showed it was not
misunderstanding Beavis
Mentioning ParkingEye v Beavis while failing to apply the overriding EU judgment of Aziz v Caixa d'Estalva. As assessors are supposed to be aware of all relevant law, they should have known this.

Give him/her 14 days.

When/if the lead assessor fails to properly address these points, you can complain to the CTSI that the IAS do not deserve ADR Entity status and it should be removed immediately.

You have to write to them though - there is no email
http://www.tradingstandards.uk/extra/contact.cfm?frmAlias=/contact/

I would try writing directly to one of these bods
http://www.tradingstandards.uk/policy/executive.cfm

traceynob

Thanks for advice. I wrote a formal complaint to IAS after my appeal, but they didn't deem it worthy of a reply. I'll write again to Mr Lead Adjudicator, and then complaint to the CTSI. I don't hold out much hope though seeing as the BPA, SRA, DVLA & my local MP haven't been particularly helpful so far. Maybe I'll try the Queen next.......!

traceynob

I've hopefully attached a link to one response from DVLA. I find it unbelievable that according to paragraph 3, it is the motorists responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions that apply. Why is it not also the parking company's responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions are prominently displayed, legible, clear, not misleading, and are fair and legal? Paragraph 6 also seems to suggest that any motorist who wishes to fight for justice should take their case to civil court. I thought the whole point of having 'independent' parking ATA's was to reduce the number of court cases not increase them?

http://imgur.com/s4pjGBD

Herzlos

Send in a formal complaint (to the complaints department, with "complaint" in the title) referencing that - in order to get access to the keeper details, the PPC must be part from an ATA (Authorized Trade Association?), both of which require the signage to be obvious enough to form a contract.