Me and Excel - At war!

Lamilad

Vine vs Waltham Forest. Note the sections highlighted in yellow.

http://s1249.photobucket.com/user/lamilad/...altham%20Forest

beamerguy

Lamilad wrote: »

Elliot vs Loake as Excel have included it in the bundle

http://s1249.photobucket.com/user/lamilad/...ot%20vs%20Loake

BWLegal and Excel are really quite insane quoting a criminal case.
We assume they will provide a full DNA report on you ???

COMPLETE AND UTTER NUTCASES

Lamilad

Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking

http://s1249.photobucket.com/user/lamilad/...ton%20vs%20Shoe

Lamilad

Hi Coupon Mad, Great to hear from you... and a relief, I have to say, as I'm up against the clock with this one. Hearing is on the 17th so if I post special delivery on Tue they will have the bundle on time (Wed). I will hand deliver to my local court.

In Anita's WS she has mentioned "Staines crown court" this is not the court we will be attending. In fact it's no where near. The hearing is in Yorkshire. It's clearly an error but I'm not sure if it's any use to me.

Great advice as always CM. I will be spending another hour tonight and all day tomorrow working on this so hopefully I'll be able to get everything done on time. Thanks again.

Lamilad

beamerguy wrote: »

BWLegal and Excel are really quite insane quoting a criminal case.
We assume they will provide a full DNA report on you ???

COMPLETE AND UTTER NUTCASES

Indeed, I just hope the judge agrees with you. What do you make of the other cases they've referred to? Is it common for PPC's to talk about these? I've haven't seem them mentioned in any other threads... Just E vs L

beamerguy

Lamilad wrote: »

Indeed, I just hope the judge agrees with you. What do you make of the other cases they've referred to? Is it common for PPC's to talk about these? I've haven't seem them mentioned in any other threads... Just E vs L

Lamilad ONLY idiotic PPC's and idiotic solicitors use such trash.

Elliot vs Loake does not relate to you whatsoever

These nutters refer to a lot of things just to scare you.

A Judge this week ripped into BWLegal ...
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/excel-advocate-reduced-to-tears-as.html

"The Judge went through the BW Legal evidence pack and tore through paragraph by paragraph forcing the LPC Lawyer to conceded on every point."

Why BWLEGAL use LPC, another so called solicitor is not really understood. Of course, it could mean they don't have a clue what to do or say.
The statement from Sohail Ismail from BW Legal was trashed by the judge

BWLegal cannot even put a case together, what does that tell you ?

BWLegal/Excel are on track to be trashed in courts around England and Wales.

Scotland and N.Ireland would not entertain this utter rubbish

Coupon-mad

Lamilad wrote: »

Indeed, I just hope the judge agrees with you. What do you make of the other cases they've referred to? Is it common for PPC's to talk about these? I've haven't seem them mentioned in any other threads... Just E vs L

I've started to write you part of a WS in response to theirs...theirs is awful! I will add this in:

In Anita's WS she has mentioned "Staines crown court" this is not the court we will be attending. In fact it's no where near. The hearing is in Yorkshire.

What do they mean at #85 that this is 'his employment car park'? Did you say that?

Was it not a retail park?

Can I check are you saying you were NOT the driver on any occasion?

Please show us the signs they are relying on and tell us if they have shown one set of BPA signs from 2014 and another different set of signs from the IPC in 2015?

Is the aerial map dated? What date? Is there only one aerial map?

Last question - have they shown you NOTHING that actually proves that no payment was made? No list of VRNs from each of those days, as recorded by the machine? NOTHING like that?! LOL... Two ANPR photos to suggest no payment made!

Lamilad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I've started to write you part of a WS in response to theirs...theirs is awful! I will add this in:

Wow, thats amazing, thank you

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What do they mean at #85 that this is 'his employment car park'? Did you say that?

Was it not a retail park?

Yes, I meant to mention this. It is just a retail park and the driver has only ever used it for shopping. I've never said anything about it being my "employment car park" and, for the record, I work 12 miles away.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can I check are you saying you were NOT the driver on any occasion?

Correct. I am the RK but the main driver is another member of my family. I have only driven this vehicle on 4 occassions, and never to this retail park.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Please show us the signs they are relying on and tell us if they have shown one set of BPA signs from 2014 and another different set of signs from the IPC in 2015?

I will upload the photos from the bundle tomorrow. There's loads of them, many are the same sign pictured from different angles/positions. Think they're just "padding" the bundle out to make it look bigger and more scary.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is the aerial map dated? What date? Is there only one aerial map?

I'll check and let you know.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Last question - have they shown you NOTHING that actually proves that no payment was made? No list of VRNs from each of those days, as recorded by the machine? NOTHING like that?! LOL... Two ANPR photos to suggest no payment made!

No they haven't included anything like that. Just loads of photos, the WS, the exhibits (references to other cases) and copies of NTKs and letters sent.

Coupon-mad

I have flung this together (next post is a basis of a WS) for you having read their drivel. I may not have picked up every point correctly so it's up to you to be sure (e.g. I do not know if they've shown some BPA signs clearly dated from 2014 and some IPC signs marked as from 2015).

If you are intending to add your own photos or other exhibits, such as proof that you were not the driver from any of those dates (work record for example) then you will have to add to it, please do.

Copy Excel's style of WS in that you must NUMBER each paragraph once you have finished it, and give each exhibit a number and refer to it in the WS (e.g. where I have put ** in red). But again you will need to add your own other exhibit numbers for things like your photos and other evidence. Hope that makes sense.

Double line-space it all, put it in Times New Roman font 12 (HONESTLY, DO IT LIKE THAT).

The transcript mentioned at the end is one from the Parking Prankster's case law:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

as blogged here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/peel-centre-machine-failure-transcript.html

HTH

Coupon-mad

****************************************************

IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.: [INSERT]

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)
____________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________

I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver. I have only driven this vehicle on 4 occasions, never to this retail park.

The paragraph numbers mentioned below relate to the Witness Statement filed by the Claimant’s paralegal, Anita Dile:

Re #6:

This is denied and Anita Dile was not there and has no knowledge of who was driving on any occasion. However, unlike Ms Dile, I do have knowledge and attest that I was not the driver.


Re #7:

The Claimant appears to be attempting to change their particulars of claim without filing the appropriate form nor paying the Court the necessary fee for this, so I object to this Witness Statement. For the first time they now state the breach is ‘having parked for longer than permitted’


Yet at #11 I see they state a completely different alleged contravention:

(that the ANPR camera) ‘identified that the vehicle was parked without purchasing a pay & display ticket’. This is denied and there is no evidence of any single period of parking, let alone evidence of not purchasing a ticket or not displaying it. An ANPR camera image shows none of these things.


Re #13 onwards: any ‘Liability Notices’ are ultra vires:

This Claimant should never have issued to a registered keeper, a document described as a ‘liability notice’ (LN) because they were not availing themselves of any right to ‘keeper liability’. This right is offered under statute to parking operators and landholders, ONLY if they comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, which Excel admit they do not. Under the applicable BPA Code of Practice at the time, a LN was a document only for cases where an operator could hold a keeper liable under the POFA. This LN was contrary to DVLA rules which prohibit misleading keepers as to whether they are the liable party. Excel know this.

I contend that they stopped using LNs in late 2014 and/or that any issued are ultra vires.

In fact I take issue with their claim that they sent LNs in 2015 or 2016. The Claimant moved to the IPC Trade Body on 1.1.2015 and had stopped issuing ‘LNs’ by then, since they chose to continue NOT to issue ‘POFA’ PCNs and were aware this risked a DVLA ban for misleading keepers re liability for non-POFA PCNs. Now, this Claimant seeks to bring me to Court as if I am liable for non-POFA PCNs!


Re #32

The claimant claims the map and photographs are a true representation of the signs. This is denied, not least because the map is undated and the signs in 2014 would have been completely different from those in 2015, due to the fact this Claimant moved to the IPC Trade Body on 1.1.15. The new signs from that date would have involved a completely different basis for the ‘parking charge’ since Excel started to follow the ‘IPC line’, that charges were not for breach of contract but were now a ‘fee’ for parking otherwise than in accordance with some terms on an IPC sign. It was not just a matter of covering the ‘BPA’ icon with an IPC sticker. Signs were physically changed in January 2015 at all Excel car park sites. The Claimant has omitted to mention this crucial difference to the Court.


Re #36

I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by Excel because I believed they were spam (this sort of scam had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, as I was not the driver and these were not offences or fines from an Authority like a Council, there was no reason nor obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. I have since researched this, hence my knowledge that these are non-POFA PCNs, incapable of holding me liable anyway.


Re #38

The Claimant is clearly using copy & paste Witness Statements following the unscrutinised claim issued by BW Legal. At #38 they mention "Staines County Court" but as the presiding Judge will be fully aware - as am I - this is not the court I will attend. If a hearing takes place it is in Yorkshire.


Re #41

The Claimant seeks to apportion blame to a keeper for not responding to their letters and for not naming the driver. This is not an obligation nor a failure on my part; I had no reason to respond and this is supported by my exhibit number ** an extract from the POPLA Annual Report 2015.

Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the ‘POPLA’ (‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ independent service offered by the BPA) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015 and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the first mentioned in this claim. I adduce as evidence Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies. No adverse inference can be drawn from my choice not to respond to what appeared to be spam.

It is submitted that the main reason that the Claimant is ‘unable to take steps to enforce’ the charges they allege apply, is due to their own choice not to use the POFA Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper letters. Had they done so, then they might have had cause to pursue me as registered keeper (subject to other evidence, such as adequate notice from signage that existed on each occasion). In the absence of such notices, there is no cause of action. It is noted that, at #43, the Claimant admits they ‘never acquired any right’ to hold me liable and indeed scrutiny of Schedule 4 (exhibit number **) proves the Notices were not worded accordingly.


Re #42

The Claimant mentions serving what they call the ‘relevant notices’. I submit that, as a registered keeper who was not driving and who only received non-POFA Notices to Keeper (NTKs) which were never my concern nor liability, these are better described as ‘irrelevant notices’.



Re #44 - #50

This argument is brazen and unsupported by the applicable law it tries to adduce. It seems the Claimant on the one hand admits that it does not comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA (due to not seeking to use the prescribed POFA wording in its PCNs) yet on the other hand…tries to use that Act anyway! This Act only applies if an operator has complied with the POFA paragraph 8 or 9 in issuing a compliant NTK as prescribed by that statute. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the keeper liability provisions of the Schedule.



Re # 54

Elliott v Loake [1982] has no application whatsoever to this case. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case. It is not, as the Claimant suggests in their Witness Statement, a reverse burden of proof. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver.


Re #55 - an absolute contradiction of their own words in #43

Here the Claimant contradicts its own previous words at #43 (where they admit they never acquired any right to hold me liable under the POFA). At #55 they now say that I was ‘served with Notices Compliant with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4’ even though they admitted in #43, this was not the case.

Issuing Notices in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 is in fact impossible, since paragraph 8 merely deals with NTKs which follow a PCN placed upon a car windscreen. Paragraph 8 does not deal with those notices issued by ANPR, as the Claimant described at #11. Neither did this Claimant comply with paragraph 9 (at all), nor the requirement for ‘adequate notice’ of the charge.

Further, they continue: ‘this places upon him a statutory obligation to provide the details of the driver’. No it most certainly does not (even if such compliant NTKs had been served). Indeed the Claimant themselves quoted Mr Greenslade the POPLA Lead Adjudicator in #43 and shot their own argument down.

It is in the public domain that when the POFA 2012 Bill was being heard in the House of Commons, Lynne Featherstone MP was vocal in rejecting calls to amend Schedule 4 (section 56 of the Bill) after considering lobbying by the BPA trying to impose a statutory obligation. Parliament refused.


Re #57

I found it odd when I received and acknowledged the court papers, that this Claimant could bring a claim against me without actually referring to anything specific - just a range of dates - it did not even say how many PCNs they were talking about. Nor did it inform me that the period spanned a time when they changed from the BPA to IPC, changed the signs, changed their Code of Practice, nor did this Claimant furnish me with any evidence nor even a description of the alleged contravention(s).

I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs. As registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for, until this WS where they have sent some photos, not defining which were BPA - 2014 version - and which were 2015 IPC signs, and an aerial map which is no proof of the signs on those days.

The Claimant is again trying to change their Particulars of Claim without payment of the appropriate court fee or filing the required form. I object to these attempts to change woeful particulars which expose the robo-claim nature of their copy & paste claims. BW Legal issues tens of thousands of claims per month and are churning out claims for Excel and its sister company VCS, in the thousands.

Further evidence of the cut & paste nature of this claim is shown at #85 where the Witness Statement says it is ‘an employment car park’. It is not any such location! It is just a retail park, in my defence I certainly never said anything about it being my "employment car park" and, for the record, I work 12 miles away - and was not the driver, as already pleaded.


Conclusion – no evidence of contravention and the Particulars lack any basis for a claim

I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended Court before and was not even the driver so I have no knowledge of the events, dates, or signage terms. I strongly object to this Claimant at the eleventh hour, showing me a range of ‘PCNs’ in an attempt to change the Particulars and trying to excuse their legal representative’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 as an ‘administrative error’.

I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course. Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

I did not even know the dates they were referring to or how many incidents until I got the court bundle. I wonder how I am supposed to know what I am defending.

I hope that I am not going to be ambushed on the day (or late) with reams of lists where any omission could just as well be evidence of their own repeated (well known) machine failure to record a VRN, as was recorded in two Excel cases recently, Excel v Ms C (Stockport) C8DP36F0 and Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 09/09/2016, Oldham Court (exhibit ** is the transcript for the latter case). This transcript is provided despite me having no idea whether the Claimant plans to amend their particulars to adduce that there was a failure by the driver(s) to input a VRN. I am having to cover all possible scenarios known in Excel claims, due to the lack of information and evidence.

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately.

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


…………………………………………………………………………. (add name and sign)
………………………
(add Date)