Excel & BW Legal

Umkomaas

I mentioned the St Albans Case as I've seen it in numerous defences/WS on other threads here, but none of them mention the case no?

Have you seen any cases won on the back of St Albans? Put it in if you wish, your case, your defence.

You ask for opinions, I gave you mine, then you seem to want to undermine them. Others might step in now.

Not sure what is meant by " There is no transcription and reproduction of a case unless the defendant pays for such."? Should I not be referring to, and using as evidence, a transcript of Excel v Lamoureux (which I downloaded from the Parking Prankster)?

Ian Lamoureux (posting and advising here as ‘!amilad’) paid for his transcript and put it in the public domain via The Parking Prankster’s website so that others might usefully copy it for their own cases - as you have done.

Mahone1302

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have you seen any cases won on the back of St Albans? Put it in if you wish, your case, your defence.

You ask for opinions, I gave you mine, then you seem to want to undermine them. Others might step in now.

Not at all wishing to undermine - simply asking the question for clarification, as somebody who has no experience of civil court procedures.

Ian Lamoureux (posting and advising here as ‘!amilad’) paid for his transcript and put it in the public domain via The Parking Prankster’s website so that others might usefully copy it for their own cases - as you have done.

That makes it clearer now, thank you.

Mahone1302

I have added this in to replace 4 & 5, an add a bit more clarification and narrative to what was going on at the time:


4. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this alleged event occurred almost three and a half years ago, it is unreasonable to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.


4.1 At the time of this event I was in a long term relationship and it is highly possible that my partner at the time, who also held a driving licence, could have been driving my vehicle. In addition to this I have previously given permission for numerous other people; friends and family, to use my vehicle.



4.2 Due to the event occurring several years ago I am unable to recall who was named on my vehicles insurance policy at the time, and no longer have the paperwork. In any event I could have legally permitted any person to drive my vehicle so long as they held sufficient insurance to do so; such as through their own insurance with the cover to drive other vehicles – which is included on many insurance policies.


4.3 The Claimant's car park is situated directly next to my place of employment, which also has it's own car park that I have used on an almost daily basis since May 2012. There is no reason that I would use the Claimant's pay & display car park, when I could simply park in my adjacent place of work car park entirely free of charge, without any loss of convenience.



5. Due to the breakdown of my relationship I moved out of the family home at the beginning of December 2015. In March 2016 I was given a pile of letters including debt collection notices from ‘Rossendales.’ I had no idea what these were in relation to and they appeared to be spam, so were ignored.


5.1 I had no knowledge of this PCN until I was handed a further pile of letters in June 2016, which included the postal PCN. It was at this time that I started correspondence with the Claimant’s legal representative which continued until March 2017.


5.2 Having not heard about this matter in 18 months, suddenly in October 2018 I received a letter out of the blue, followed soon after by a court claim. I have researched this and discovered that Excel are issuing robo-claims for archive 'parking charges' in their thousands.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Include in evidence from the Parking Prankster's case law pages, the transcripts of:

Excel v Lamoureux

and the HIGHER LEVEL 'APPEAL' DECISION in

Excel v Smith.

See above, again.

You've missed the more important one as it was on appeal (higher level Judge overturning an error made at a County Court hearing) and deals with EVERYTHING you've mentioned about the POFA and the improper citation of Elliot v Loake!

Mahone1302

Coupon-mad wrote: »

See above, again.

You've missed the more important one as it was on appeal (higher level Judge overturning an error made at a County Court hearing) and deals with EVERYTHING you've mentioned about the POFA and the improper citation of Elliot v Loake!

Thanks CM - I had printed that on off but in my haste had forgotten to include it. I've read it and can see that it mainly centres on Combined v AJH Films and Excel trying to use this as a reason to hold a keeper liable for a drivers actions; on the basis of agency. Excel/BW so far haven't mentioned this one to me in any correspondence however I'm guessing this is something that they're still trying in court? I'll get it added in today before I send off. Some good references by the Judge to POFA also which is helpful. I've added the following, and unless anybody thinks I've missed anything, I'll be filing it with the court & Excel by email later this afternoon:

9.2 An appeal at Manchester County Court on Thursday 8th June 2017 before His Honour Judge Smith, no. C0DP9C4E/M17X062 suggests that POFA 2012 is precisely where in law, an operator can hold a keeper liable for unpaid parking charges. The Claimant had chosen instead to use the general law of agency, quoting Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films. HHJ Smith found that this was not relevant to that case, and allowed the appeal.

Mahone1302

Quick question - having spoken to the court, they can apparently only accept emailed documents of no more than 25 pages. My WS is 5 pages however some of my exhibits, such as the POPLA Report, IPC CoP and POFA 2012 are well over 25 pages. Considering I'm only actually referring to 1 or 2 pages from each of these documents, what would be better:


1) Exhibit (and provide) only the relevant pages, as opposed to entire documents.
2) Email the WS and the relevant pages of the exhibits, and explain that the full hard copy exhibits will be sent by post.
3) Email the WS and the entire documents, and explain that a hard copy has also been sent by post.

Le_Kirk

You are always better off taking your "bundle" to the court, especially as it is local to you - don't get another parking ticket though! Search this forum using Advanced Search with ring binder as your search term and change the radio button from threads to posts.

Mahone1302

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You are always better off taking your "bundle" to the court, especially as it is local to you - don't get another parking ticket though! Search this forum using Advanced Search with ring binder as your search term and change the radio button from threads to posts.

Thanks. Unfortunately the court isn't that local (19 miles) however I think you're probably right that a hard copy hand delivered is best. I can't get there today, and it's not open of a weekend. This means the earliest I can deliver is Monday 15th, which I presume should be acceptable for a hearing on the 29th. The notice of allocation states 14 days - so I can only guess the 15th is included.

Mahone1302

As luck would have it, BWLegal's WS has just dropped through the letterbox! I'm having a quick skim of it, interestingly they have said that not only did I fail to respond to the PCN and NTK, but I also failed to respond to the correspondence from the Claimants solicitor! That's funny, as I remember playing letter ping pong with them for almost a year. Luckily I have kept everything.

Mahone1302

Looks like I may have another point of defence here - the contract between Excel and the landowner mentions no authority for them to pursue civil claims, merely "issue "Parking Charge Notices" to vehicles and pursue offenders for final payment of the offence." This is of course a little ambiguous but I would hope that in absence of explicit permission to pursue civil court action, the Judge may be swayed.


Also they have mentioned 'Agency' in their WS, albeit still no mention of CPS v AJH. However I've updated my WS as follows:


9.2 An appeal at Manchester County Court on Thursday 8th June 2017 before His Honour Judge Smith, no. C0DP9C4E/M17X062 suggests that POFA 2012 is precisely where in law, an operator can hold a keeper liable for unpaid parking charges. The Claimant had chosen instead to use the general law of agency, quoting Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films. HHJ Smith found that this was not relevant to that case, and allowed the appeal.

9.3 Indeed the Claimant has in his Witness Statement suggested that the law of agency is relevant here, with any driver being the agent of myself as registered keeper and principal, thus allowing the driver to bind me to a contract. This is not supported in law hence HHJ Smith allowing the appeal in the previous case involving the very same Claimant as this one – Excel Parking Services.

Transcript of Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062 (Excel v Smith) attached – Exhibit D1.