Excel - Court Papers Received

James8

Hello - hoping for a bit of advice/assistance with regards to a PCN received 15 months ago from Excel.


Having had an initial request for appeal declined (admittedly after the official appeal period), I've received various debt collection letters, phone calls, threats and what not before finally being served with a court claim last week from 'BW Legal'. The charge has gone from £100 to in excess of £200.


I've acknowledged the claim online and am now hoping to get a bit of advice on how best to approach a defence. Would anybody recommend using Parkingappeals to help handle it?


The original PCN was issued because the driver apparently 'left leisure park', whatever that means.


Any help is very much appreciated.

Fruitcake

I thought that parking appeals companies didn't normally do court.

There is a link to court in the NEWBIES thread and a court guide can be bought for a few quid from the Parking-Prankster's website. They are good places to start.

Redx

read pranksters recent blog where BW LEGAL have finally started court claims (for VCS I think, but same house as Excel , same BW LEGAL too)

James8

Thanks Fruitcake and RedX - I saw Prankster's post regarding BW Legal, suggesting they were 'incompetent'. Many of the facts seem fairly similar.


I'm hoping to be able to submit a defence to which they will back off as like the case on the Prankster's blog, this isn't as cut and dry as 'didn't buy a ticket' or overstaying. Obviously not wanting to trip myself up any guidance on how to do this - I read the newbie's thread which suggested acknowledging the claim and then start a new thread for a bit of advice.


Thanks again

Redx

the advice now is to read recent 2016 court claim threads on here, following the BARGEPOLE link and to prepare your HOLDING (skeleton) defence based on your knowledge of the case and also cherry picking the parts others are using in their 2016 cases (dont use anything prior to 2016)

you can then post the details of the holding defence on here for critique, bearing in mind that people like BW and parking companies and others will be able to read it

nobody will do this for you, not pro bono, unless its a special case, but as there are maybe two dozen or more cases currently "on the go" on here and over at pepipoo forums you should get some ideas from their holding defences and any other work and mail they are doing or have done

so yes, starting a new thread was correct, but now you do the research by studying cases further along than you and preparing a draft of your initial holding defence that will be submitted to the court within the 28 days from the date of service

the forum search box will aid you in this quest , as mentioned in these similar recent threads and the replies given

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5461178

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5458083

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5449676

it took me less than 5 minutes to find those examples on page one of this sub forum, just think what you would find if you spent an hour finding two dozen more that are further down the court claim track ?

UKPC
CEL
Parking Eye

to name just a few (you wont find many or any with BW Legal or VCS or Excel, but the principles are similar anyway - ie:- legal arguments as defences , based on locus standii , signage , CoP failures , NTK failures , POFA2012 failures , etc)

The_Deep

More reading

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/motorist-wins-18-month-ticket-battle-870812

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLS_en-GBGB547GB548&q=Excel+lose+in+court

James8

Thanks again for your replies. Having had a read around and found some similar cases I think a defence can be built around the following. I just wanted to check, before writing anything up in full, that these would be valid arguments:

- Non corresponding NTK and PCN: One states 'left leisure park', the other 'parked a restricted area' therefore making at least one of them invalid. - Excel yet to provide any evidence of either contravention.
- Failure to mitigate loss: If the driver was seen/filmed leaving the site the attendant made no effort to alert the driver of any wrongdoing.
- Invalid NTK: Notice to Keeper only states the contravention time and not the period for which the vehicle was parked.
- Inadequate signage: unreadable signs in breach code of practice - The use of yellow and blue font despite BPA (correct authority for Excel still??) advice to avoid this combination. This is presumed to be used in an attempt to distort driver's ability to read/understand alleged contract, thus making it void.

I've avoided anything about disproportionate charge/not genuine pre-estimate of loss as this no longer seems to be valid?

Any critique would be very much appreciated. Things to add/remove? I'm also a little unsure with regards to how much detail should be included at this stage,

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Might help you all, if you and these posters compare notes about your defences and your research, by private message:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5461798

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5461516

HTH

catfunt

Hello,
You need to start your own thread. I suggest you copy and paste your post above into a new thread. If "ollyb" is a clue to your name, I suggest you get a new username that gives no clue as to your identity before posting again, and remove the wording of your post above.

The scammers read these forums.