Excel Parking Court Claim

r1ddy

Hi,

I am looking for advice in relation to a Court Claim received from Excel Parking.

They are pursuing a claim for parking penalties plus interest and Court

The vehicle is a Motability vehicle; I have a disabled son (he does not drive himself). He has several carers including myself and other family members who use the vehicle to transport him.

I need advice on several fronts here.

Firstly, I have not received any PCN notices from Excel.

I assume this is because they have written to Motability. I should add at this point that I am my son's financial appointee and therefore his motability agreement is in my name. Motability are the registered keeper of the vehicle, not me so I do not believe the claim should be against me, equally, I accept that Motability aren't liable.

Third, the name on the claim for is incorrect, they have named me xxz rather than xxy.

I wonder whether there is merit in defending the claim on the basis of the above flaws?

With regard to identifying the driver of the vehicle on the occasions mentioned, Some of the carers that worked with my son then have since left.

I am aware that I have used that car park on a couple of occasions, I have always assumed there to be a blue badge concession. In my experience, nowhere charges for disabled badge holder parking.

My biggest concern is that there was no notice of the intended

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Umkomaas

The very first thing you must do, as a matter of urgency, is to acknowledge service of the court papers. You can do this online via the MCOL website, it will give you a further 14 days in which to prepare your initial defence.

You will need plenty of help with this, so I suggest you also open a new thread (copy and paste your original above) over on PePiPoo where more of the 'legals' contribute.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=SF&s=&f=60

Parking-Prankster

Excel do not issue compliant notice to keepers, so only the driver of the vehicle is liable.

CHANGED FOLLOWING CLARIFICATION

Your defence is therefore.
1) I am not liable as keeper as Excel do not issue Notices to Keeper compliant with POFA 2012 sch 4, but instead choose to 'pursue the keeper on the reasonable belief they were the driver'.
2) In any case, I have never received any Notice to Keeper documents for these charges
2) I was not the driver. The vehicle is for my disabled son's use and was driven by his carer's. I have no knowledge of who the drivers were on these occasions.
3) As there is no cause of action against me, and therefore no prospect of success I request the claim be struck out.

I'm happy to pop to Stockport and act as lay representative if Excel are stupid enough to pursue this further. (and if dates do not clash). If so, please get in touch at prankster@parking-prankster.com

The last time I faced Excel in Stockport not only did they sail very close to the wind regarding perjury, but they also submitted faked evidence. If we get the same judge it could be very interesting.

I don't think any more is needed at this stage.

Redx

Peel Centre comes up on here regularly and is a private pay and display car park , very few car parks are "free" and the BB does not apply on private car parks anyway, only the EA2010

in Stockport and the surrounding Greater Manchester district the vast majority of private car parks have rules as regards Blue Badges , few are free , not even hospitals like Tameside for example

so in future , check the signage when you park, especially at the Peel Centre, Trafford Centre , the B&M across the road from the Peel Centre and any supermarkets , retail parks , hospitals, doctors surgeries , airports etc etc

when Motability let you have this car, they registered you as the KEEPER , so the records will show this although they keep the V5C and if contacted they will correctly name you and your address as keeper (even if they issue an error like in the name)

so the court claim is correctly against YOU as KEEPER , not Motability

it may be worth asking Motability to check their records and see why the name is misspelled, probably a mistake or a typo

I would also ask them whose name and address is on the V5C and the claim forms and any pcn,s , because they should not be sending paperwork to both addresses, only the keepers address (or the keeper named by Motability)

I would contact parking prankster and ask him what happened with the court cases he was involved with at the Peel Centre a couple of years ago, see if there are any judgments or precedents for the Peel Centre, plus take him up on his offer of help above (he has done this before)

also do as mentioned above and in post #5 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, acknowledge the claim and prepare a defence etc

I dont think the flaws negate the claim, but it needs to be addressed and the errors identified, because it may be important in the defence or in the judges decision making

Umkomaas

Red - post #5 of the newbies sticky has gone AWOL (the small claims one); the 'complaints' post (previously #6) has jumped up to replace it.

Whether C-m has taken it down for a revamp, or whether it has mysteriously disappeared as the debt collectors post #4 did a few weeks ago, I'm not sure. But it's not there at the moment.

esmerobbo

Motability are not on the log book as the registered keeper, the customer who hires the car is. Motability hold the V5c. If a request is made to the DVLA the name and address of the customer is given and not Motability.

Redx

esmerobbo wrote: »

Motability are not on the log book as the registered keeper, the customer who hires the car is. Motability hold the V5c. If a request is made to the DVLA the name and address of the customer is given and not Motability.

clearly somebody at either the dealership, Motability or the DVLA has the incorrect details of the keeper, unless the typo was Excel themselves - this needs sorting out

also, there is no way that both the father and son should be written to, only the keeper should be written to, so there is no explanation as to why both people have been written to

the actual KEEPER should make it clear to those carers driving the son about that they adhere to the rules in the BLUE BADGE blue booklet and not to assume its free parking on private car parks or land (this is a common fallacy that most people seem to buy into)

I too am a BB holder and had a Motability car, its always been my experience that private car parks that charge a fee dont allow free parking for disabled people, but may offer some sort of concession like one hour extra such as seen on Tameside Council car parks or at Tameside Hospital

those that are "free" tend to have various rules , like asda , retail parks etc , usually where its a limited concession to park, like 4 hours on Crown Point North for example

Redx

Umkomaas wrote: »

Red - post #5 of the newbies sticky has gone AWOL (the small claims one); the 'complaints' post (previously #6) has jumped up to replace it.

Whether C-m has taken it down for a revamp, or whether it has mysteriously disappeared as the debt collectors post #4 did a few weeks ago, I'm not sure. But it's not there at the moment.

sorry, didnt know it had been "lost"

here it is from a few months ago from "the wayback machine"

perhaps CM can add it again to the NEWBIES sticky thread ?

SMALL CLAIMS COURT?

VERY RARE EXCEPT WITH PARKINGEYE - A GOOD REASON NOT TO IGNORE THESE FAKE PCNS!


IN VIEW OF THE FUDGMENT IN PARKINGEYE V BEAVIS IT IS BEST TO POST A QUESTION ON YOUR THREAD IF YOU GET A PARKINGEYE COURT CLAIM, DON'T START LOTS OF THREADS PLEASE.


Here is more info about deadlines & how to submit your defence and when, including info about making a PART 18 request early on for their 'particulars':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65879351#Comment_65879351


and here bargepole explains the first defence should be short, a holding defence, then he explains what happens later on with a more detailed defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66052955#Comment_66052955




[URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20150906181341/https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5040759https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5040759[/URL]


A summary of the actual court hearing experience, and tips about the process, from technix on pepipoo who won against Parking Eye in January 2014:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81150&st=80&p=916329&#entry916 329

Another summary (post #171) of the court experience from liseylou who won on signage wording, in Sept 2014:

[URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20150906181341/https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4908490https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4908490[/URL]

and here a poster on CAG (post #51) summarises simply how to organise yourself & your defence - if a hearing occurs in your case:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421363-Parking-Eye-court-paperes-received-**-WON-**/page3&

and another really good summary from Mrs Baddeley about her court experience, what happened, gives you a good feel for the hearing:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/why-size-does-matter-parkingeyes-3.html



Specific info about Civil Enforcement Claims 2014 which are not sent via MCOL (a bit different than ParkingEye):



Anyone with a court case with Civil Enforcement Limited should ask for it to be stayed until the test case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Curtis A93YM708 is heard. Anyone with a court case with DEAL should ask for it to be stayed until the test case of DEAL v Colclough A79YP365

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/cel-turn-up-to-court-50-cases-of.html


MORE HERE BY WAY OF BACKGROUND:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=94913

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64895990#Comment_64895990


Unlike ParkingEye who send in Solicitors, CEL do not generally turn up when a case is defended:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/civil-enforcement-limited-fail-to.html


Also look here for more proof and the CEL v McCafferty case (CEL lost it in the first hearing AND on Appeal so it is important) plus loads of other PPC cases:

List of PPC Court Cases won by defendants (non-exhaustive) (clicky link)
Last edited by Coupon-mad; 23-04-2015 at 2:21 PM.

r1ddy

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify, they have not written to either address (so far as I am aware) with notices.

The claim form was sent to my address by the court and my address appears on the claim form. The particulars of claim were sent to my sons address but with my name (well, Gerald) on.

I assume that given it is a minor error or typo possibly on the part of Motability that service would be effective and I should acknowledge?

However, I would say that the POC sent to my sons address would not represent effective service? Is this correct?

I will add this query to pepipoo as advised.

If parking prankster could provide a draft defence I would be very grateful. I appreciate all the help and replies so far.

Redx

I would say you still need to contact Motability and find out the exact details of what is on that V5C

ie:- the Exact NAME

the KEEPERS address for all correspondence

this is because the V5C records are what Excel have accessed at the DVLA and they should and will use those details, nothing else

therefore, its important to know which name and address are on that V5C and get any errors corrected

if the car is in your name as HIRER/KEEPER , then it should have your name and your address for any issues like speeding tickets, parking charges etc

there is no way Excel should have both addresses, unless they used a debt recovery agent who has given them false details, likely matches etc - this may especially happen if the V5C details are incorrect - hence why you should sort this out and so you know why any previous correspondence was missed

the claim will still need to be acknowledged however, but I will let somebody with more experience than me try to help you, especially if its prankster who has had previous dealings with Excel and the Peel Centre

I would assume they can write to you at any serviceable address, could be your address, sons address or even a work address, just somewhere you are likely to get your mail from, but I agree it should all go to one address only, that of the KEEPER that Motability registered when the agreement was taken out

esmerobbo

You can request a copy of the V5c from them here.

https://www.motability.co.uk/cars-and-wavs/customer-area/request-copy-of-v5c

Remembering that it has to be the customer who requests it.

If it has done the rounds of the various debt collectors they use, it may well have been subject to data crawling and they have come up with some connected names and address's.