Excel - County Court Claim

juke_joint

BTW - found out the deadline is Monday so will probably post in next day or two.

Coupon-mad

juke_joint wrote: »

Hi
Not got their eveidence bundle yet. My wife has completed a witness statement to say she was a passenger. We have not stated who the driver was. would me saying she wasn't the driver make the judge presume I was?
We were just looking through the Beavis court notes and wondering if we should include any of it as exhibits in our bundle to support points 7 and 8 from our skeleton defence above?

We also have an email from Bradford Council stating their signage had no planning permission and is technically unlawful as well as statements from Sports Direct (the land owners) instructing Excel to drop the case!

Great - yes include all of it, why not. Your initial defence covered those bases so you are entitled to expand on it.

Here is a legally-written example of how to argue that no planning permission/advertising consent means that the court should not be supporting the claimant's case arising from that unlawfulness:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/parkingeye-drop-two-claims-after-being.html

HTH

Castle

Is this the same car park:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=109279

juke_joint

Yes. That's the one! Excel reckon they can't cancel ours as it's already in the court process. Which I think is a load of tosh and will !!!! off the judge!

So do you think I should definitely include my witness statement despite how it may implicate myself as the driver?

Coupon-mad

No in fact I would not. Now you've pointed out that it could implicate you!

I would 100% use that email though, to show the landowners interest is in fact in cancelling these PCNs and the entire contract, it seems. Therefore your case is the polar opposite of the Beavis case where the 'legitimate interest' of the landowner was persuasive to the Judges, so they moved the goalposts, saving the Beavis case charge alone, from being deemed an unrecoverable penalty.

You can say that to sue people against the wishes of the landowner is the very essence of an 'unconscionable' (BEAVIS BUZZWORD) charge. You did have something about landowner authority in your defence so that email is the icing on that cake.

juke_joint

Also - what is the best response if Excel say they don't need to comply with POFA for post 2012 incidents such as ours?

Coupon-mad

Well, they don't have to, of course, and may PPC don't bother as the deadlines and ooohhh...copying statutory wording seems to tax their brain cells too much!

But they then leave themselves with no lawful route to hold a keeper liable for the actions of an unidentified driver.

juke_joint

Just to update this thread.. I attended court (Skipton) with my wife.. the Excel rep (presumably from BW Legal) was there and asked if we wanted to make an offer. Given that we had just found out the Judge had recently awarded them full costs for a similar case we were tempted, but not when they quoted £160.

So.. we went in (after waiting an hour) and two hours later we lost... Have to pay £259..

My wife typed up a summary...



1) Excel do have the right to regulate. Defendant cannot require the Claimant to prove their status to issue / enforce parking charges. Queen is the only landowner / the Crown. Balance of probability that Excel are entitled. Can choose not to produce the lease. Judge doesn’t accept the Sports Direct are the landowners. “they are just one of the shops on the Retail Park.” The letters I attached to my bundle (stating opposed to Excel’s actions) do not assert that they are the landowner. If they were the landowner, they would evict Excel, not negotiate with them.

2) Registered keeper liability. No evidence for alledged breaches of POFA 2012. The driver agrees to be contractually bound through the signage & letters T&Cs. Reasonable assumption that RK was the driver. Excel can rely on PCN notice. Defendant must face the consequences of not naming the driver. Clear from PCN letter & signage T&Cs. State VEHICLE OR DRIVER. Entitled to pursue RK.

3) Which aspects of POFA are breached? None. Judge read through all the conditions in S.4 and said all were met, (not exactly sure where she was reading from within S.4). Satisfied that conditions met and Excel can pursue RK. Whether or not the Claimant chooses to rely on POFA the conditions were not breached.

4) Illegally placed signage & cameras does not mean any contract is void or unenforceable. Criminal conduct is not proved by Bd Council letter. Judge questioned the authority of Daniel Speedy, Enforcement Officer. The Council’s assertion has not been tested in a court of law or tribunal. No provable criminal act in relation to signs or cameras. No testing out of criminal conduct. “Even if proved, I would not accept the argument that contract would be rendered unenforceable”.

5) Signage sufficiently clear. 10 mins grace to leave and not be bound by its terms. “Obvious and simple info is apparent to the public”, doesn’t accept any overload of info.

6) The point of Beavis was that it accepted circa £80 is an acceptable sum. Excel run on a similar business model so Beavis is applicable. Also Codes of Practice say it’s an acceptable sum.

7) Judge said - “I’ve seen these arguments many, many times before. I know where these things arise. These arguments are not (promungated?) or successful. If I knew these arguments had found favour in a higher court I would be bound to follow”

£100 initial charge
£54 contractual costs
£50 court fee
£50 hearing fee
£5.96 interest

TOTAL £259.96

Legal fees £50 disallowed for unreasonable behaviour of defendant, which I had to argue for.


So - just to clarify she also ignored all the Elliot v Loake that was quoted and basically said it didn't matter if Excel followed POFA or not. They had the right to use it or not and they could assume the RK was the driver either way.

And Excel provided a copy of a lease agreement which was basically a single page on their letter head signed by themselves with no mention of any other party and legible date. This was accepted by the "judge."


Massive waste of time and money.

pappa_golf

sorry to hear that , the judge was a fool!

take heed in knowing , out of your £259.96 , after they have paid the court costs = £196.96 and it will have cost them in excess of £200 to organise this and pay for legal services .

tiz a scam ,

beamerguy

This is a sad day, for you and the Judiciary:eek:

It is sad for the Judiciary that the judge has not brushed up on her history lessons regarding Elliot v Loake.
Clearly she did not have a clue between a criminal case and a civil case ?

Judge said - “I’ve seen these arguments many, many times before. I know where these things arise."

If that is true, she will be well aware of this scam, maybe she reads forums to try and brush up on her "not so skilled" decisions. Won't be MSE or Peppipoo though

Very sad for the judge at Skipton