Another victim of PCN (from Excel, Peel Centre) fighting back.

Rainman06

We have been instructed by Excel Parking Services Ltd in relation to the Balance Due for the above PCN.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Balance Due includes the £100.00 PCN charge plus Our Client's initial legal costs of £54.00, which are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.

As you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal (NOT TRUE, I wrote to Excel challenging the PCN) within 28 days of the date of the PCN, the Balance Due remains outstanding and we require payment in full within 16 days of the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment within the specified timeframe, we will seek Our Client's instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the form of a County Court Claim Form in the County Court.

What you need to do next
It is important you contact us... etc etc.

beamerguy

Rainman06 wrote: »

We have been instructed by Excel Parking Services Ltd in relation to the Balance Due for the above PCN.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Balance Due includes the £100.00 PCN charge plus Our Client's initial legal costs of £54.00, which are detailed in the car park terms and conditions.

As you have failed to make a payment or raise an appeal (NOT TRUE, I wrote to Excel challenging the PCN) within 28 days of the date of the PCN, the Balance Due remains outstanding and we require payment in full within 16 days of the date of this letter. If you fail to make payment or provide reasons for non payment within the specified timeframe, we will seek Our Client's instructions to commence legal proceedings against you in the form of a County Court Claim Form in the County Court.

What you need to do next
It is important you contact us... etc etc.

What a tame threat-o-gram ????

I assume you have proof that you appealed.

At this stage you should respond confirming you appealed and as keeper (not driver) deny you owe anything to Excel and you require proof of their claim.
We can then see if they deny the appeal you made or, if they know about it, they will be the first to tell BWLegal.

The ping pong letters can continue. If BWLegal ignore you as well,
then it's a complaint to the SRA.

As they need permission from Excel to proceed, it is now going to be interesting if Excel are prepared to trust BWL as currently this solicitor is costing them more money with cases than it's worth

Rainman06

beamerguy wrote: »

What a tame threat-o-gram ????

I assume you have proof that you appealed.

At this stage you should respond confirming you appealed and as keeper (not driver) deny you owe anything to Excel and you require proof of their claim.
We can then see if they deny the appeal you made or, if they know about it, they will be the first to tell BWLegal.

The ping pong letters can continue. If BWLegal ignore you as well,
then it's a complaint to the SRA.

As they need permission from Excel to proceed, it is now going to be interesting if Excel are prepared to trust BWL as currently this solicitor is costing them more money with cases than it's worth

I originally appealed (as keeper) via email and by post. I saved the email I sent and have the free 'proof of posting' slip from the post office for the letter. I hope that constitutes proof that I appealed?

Enclosed with the BW letter was a letter from Excel stating that my account has passed to their legal team, BW Legal. Does this constitute proof of Excel's claim?

If so should I still request proof of Excel's claim?

beamerguy

Rainman06 wrote: »

I originally appealed (as keeper) via email and by post. I saved the email I sent and have the free 'proof of posting' slip from the post office for the letter. I hope that constitutes proof that I appealed?

Enclosed with the BW letter was a letter from Excel stating that my account has passed to their legal team, BW Legal. Does this constitute proof of Excel's claim?

If so should I still request proof of Excel's claim?

Ok, so that is a letter basically instructing BWL.

What did your appeal say and what evidence did you provide in support

Rainman06

My appeal was based on the template that Coupon Mad laid out in the NEWBIES thread, to IPC members (although I see that the template has changed slightly since I appealed). Would you like the appeal in full?

My only evidence was that the 'Issue Date Of This Notice' and 'Contravention Date', both given on the PCN, are more than 14 days apart, and that they have failed to identify the driver. Therefore failing to comply with PoFA.

Rainman06

Judging by what I've read in other threads, my main defence that the driver has not been identified will not hold up in court, since I cannot prove that I was not the driver. A lot of people drive my car and I cannot recall exactly who drove it when. The Judge will most likely deem it 'reasonably probable' that I was the driver, and rule in favour of the PPC on that point.

Therefore, my main defence should be that of inadequate signage, and I should start taking photos of the signs/entrance/parking bays/machines as well as a video of the approach, entrance to, and route through the car park. Compiling these along with facts about increasing numbers of PCN's, references to the Cutts case etc. How does that sound?

I know I'm not at that point yet, but judging by the other threads it seems inevitable that I will be soon, after the letter 'ping pong' with BWL.

catfunt

Rainman06 wrote: »

Judging by what I've read in other threads, my main defence that the driver has not been identified will not hold up in court, since I cannot prove that I was not the driver. A lot of people drive my car and I cannot recall exactly who drove it when. The Judge will most likely deem it 'reasonably probable' that I was the driver, and rule in favour of the PPC on that point.

Therefore, my main defence should be that of inadequate signage, and I should start taking photos of the signs/entrance/parking bays/machines as well as a video of the approach, entrance to, and route through the car park. Compiling these along with facts about increasing numbers of PCN's, references to the Cutts case etc. How does that sound?

I know I'm not at that point yet, but judging by the other threads it seems inevitable that I will be soon, after the letter 'ping pong' with BWL.

i suggest you read Lamilad's thread ! He was in court this week, and won his case on the basis that he was not driving and nothing the PPC could say could prove he was.

Pay particular attention to the comments made by Henry Greenslade, and to the wording in POFA.

Also have a look on the forum for "Elliott v Loake" and how that case is not relevant to a parking event and can therefore be robustly rebutted.

fisherjim

Rainman06 wrote: »

Judging by what I've read in other threads, my main defence that the driver has not been identified will not hold up in court, since I cannot prove that I was not the driver. A lot of people drive my car and I cannot recall exactly who drove it when. The Judge will most likely deem it 'reasonably probable' that I was the driver, and rule in favour of the PPC on that point.

Therefore, my main defence should be that of inadequate signage, and I should start taking photos of the signs/entrance/parking bays/machines as well as a video of the approach, entrance to, and route through the car park. Compiling these along with facts about increasing numbers of PCN's, references to the Cutts case etc. How does that sound?

I know I'm not at that point yet, but judging by the other threads it seems inevitable that I will be soon, after the letter 'ping pong' with BWL.

It's them making the threats and accusations, it would be up to them to prove you were the driver, and how can they do that?

Umkomaas

The options for PPCs to make any assumptions about who the driver was have significantly narrowed over the past couple of weeks, with E-v-L debunked, Lamilad's great victory yesterday and the seemingly growing weight being attached to Henry Greenslade's statement.

No one should be making any negative assumptions about positions a judge might take in this regard. PPCs have more to worry about than motorists here.

Lamilad

Rainman06 wrote: »

Judging by what I've read in other threads, my main defence that the driver has not been identified will not hold up in court, since I cannot prove that I was not the driver. A lot of people drive my car and I cannot recall exactly who drove it when. The Judge will most likely deem it 'reasonably probable' that I was the driver, and rule in favour of the PPC on that point.

Therefore, my main defence should be that of inadequate signage, and I should start taking photos of the signs/entrance/parking bays/machines as well as a video of the approach, entrance to, and route through the car park. Compiling these along with facts about increasing numbers of PCN's, references to the Cutts case etc. How does that sound?

I know I'm not at that point yet, but judging by the other threads it seems inevitable that I will be soon, after the letter 'ping pong' with BWL.

It is up them up prove you WERE the driver not the other way round so unless you've said something you shouldn't have done in your appeal then there's not much chance of that happening.


The judge will certainly not deem it reasonably probable you were the driver because you will provide evidence the shows the judge "there is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper was the driver"


Inadequate signage will certainly form part of you defence but the bulk of your focus should be on the above evidence and PoFA non compliance. they have proved time and time again they cannot win against a well prepared defendant who can hammer these points home to the judge.