Excel, Bryan House Wigan

doublinedancer

Hi Everyone,

I wonder if anyone could assist with finding out who the landowner is for Bryan House Car Park in Wigan.

I have a rejection from Excel whilst delivering to The Chinese Buffet. They state that I should have called the Helpline to register the vehicle or purchased a ticket. Having researched this site it appears that IAS are somewhat biased but i intend to appeal to them. I am trying to find out who the landowner is without success. The Chinese Buffet aren't interested in getting involved.

Many thanks for any assistance.

Coupon-mad

Why did you appeal an Excel ticket? Very few here would tell you to hand an IPC member firm the 'advantage' of you losing an appeal. Ignore them unless you get court papers or a Letter before Claim.

DO NOT APPEAL TO THE IAS! THEY HAVE GOT THEIR KANGAROO COURT ACCEPTED AS A 'STATUTORY ADR' WHICH GIVES THE DECISION SOME CLOUT. YOU WILL LOSE, EVERYONE LOSES, SO DON'T APPEAL FURTHER.

...the IAS are somewhat biased but i intend to appeal to them.

Nope. Do not do it! Please don't.

g0wfv

Best bet is a Land Registry search (£3 per document!)

For Bryan House, you'll need 2 minimum - there are 2 freehold titles - one for the building and one for the "land adjoining".

You could Google and do some reading - I tried, there are a few threads relating to this site on Pepipoo and here but didn't spend too long on it.

You could also try an FOI request to the local council, but info may not be up-to-date.

Herzlos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Very few here would tell you to hand an IPC member firm the 'advantage' of you losing an appeal.

... are you sure?

doublinedancer

Thanks Guy's, now I am confused. Get lots of these from PE who cancel with acopy POD. Assumed this lot would do the same.

Thanks Coupon for the advice but I don't know enough to go to court and Iunderstand Excel do.There is a point of appeal but I'm not great at it. I help ourdrivers when i can to try and save them money. All of our vehicles arehired/leased and as such, PPC NTO's don't comply with POFA as a rule. Haven'thad an Excel ticket before but i note that they say they are the creditor andthis:

"If you were not the driver, please complete and return the relevantsection on the reverse side of this notice giving the drivers full name andserviceable address in order that we can direct this Parking Charge Noticeaccordingly AND please pass this Notice on to the driver. If the vehicle was onhire on the date of the contravention OR had been sold etc etc"

I then made the appeal stating that the driver was making a delivery whichthey have rejected with the above and "When parking on private land amotorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parkingin return for permission to park. It is the motorists responsibility etc. Thesigns in the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practiceand are therefore deemed reasonable"

I was thinking that grounds for appeal would be based on POFA:

13...
(2)..
(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effectthat at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hireagreement;
(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hireagreement.

I am unsure as to what to do. Should I appeal to IAS ornot. Haven’t been to court in my life but would have a go if that is the adviceof the knowledgeable members.

Thank you so far…

Herzlos

You have the other points as well. The signage doesn't comply to the COP, and is so insufficient it doesn't form a contract. If it was clear, your driver wouldn't have parked there.

Then it's neither a core term (a. there's no way to pay for it and b. no-one would agree to it) nor is it damages for a breach of contract (no loss).

Then you can state that you don't believe the PPC has the landowners authority to issue the charge.

Whether you appeal to IAS or not is up to you, there are some of us who feel that it's not worth legitimising, and there are some of us that feel that the result is so clearly biased to make it an own goal to present in court. Plus, it costs the PPC money and gives you something to complain to the DVLA about.

Coupon-mad

Herzlos wrote: »

... are you sure?

Yes, I know there are a few, that's why I didn't say 'no-one'.

IMHO now the IAS is becoming a 'proper' ADR (OMG what a joke) the very LAST thing a person wants is a loss from them.

doublinedancer

Good points well made. Thanks CM and Herzlos, I'll take your advice and await court papers. I'll then definately be back because i have little idea of the procedures.

They send the Rejection addressed to me C/O the company as I was the person who signed the challenge but they do not have the drivers name.

Herzlos

Coupon-mad wrote: »

IMHO now the IAS is becoming a 'proper' ADR (OMG what a joke) the very LAST thing a person wants is a loss from them.

On the assumption that the small claims judge won't bother reading the arguments or rejection? Will the loss of the ADR look worse than ignoring the ADR entirely?

I'd say the opposite; you want a loss from them even more now that they are a proper ADR. It won't take many of these results to lose them that status...

doublinedancer

I have searched several website over the weekend and indeedthe opinions are very varied as to appealing to IAS. I think I’ll go to courtand seek assistance from the experienced members as to how to prepare best.

I am however wondering if a letter to Excel saying that I willrefrain from using the service due to the many contentious decisions that havebeen made and were it POPLA I would have had no hesitation in doing so. Thiswill then at least register a reason for not doing so when evidence is providedin court.

I would appreciate your comments as to whether this is asensible course of action to take.

Many thanks for the help so far.

The_Deep

Please ignore CM's advice and appeal to the IAS, the advantages of doing so, (and probably losing,) are overwhelming at present, and I just cannot see them getting their act together in the short term.

In view of some of their recent ludicrous adjudications, their credibility is at rock bottom, and they have a very high mountain to climb.