Court papers received

System

What do you think the "offence" was e.g. overstaying, not paying, not paying soon enough, over the line, in a BB space without a BB etc

Kayleighb1

The alleged offence was staying in the peel centre car park for 33 minutes without paying

The passenger at the time was breastfeeding a 4 month old
Hence the overstay

Redx

this place is a well known honeytrap and blogged about repeatedly on the net

its a pay and display car park which is part of a private retail park owned by PEEL HOLDINGS (hence the name PEEL) and patrolled by Excel. you dont have to use the shops or restaurants, but you DO have to pay, to stay (no matter what the purpose of the visit is)

Peel Holdings never deal with customer complaints, neither here nor in the Speke Business Park , nor J.L.A. either

the person named on the court papers will have to defend this court action

bear in mind this is a pay and display car park , no concessions and the nearby retailers have no sway over the running of the car park and the retailers do not provide any parking spaces at all for customers , its all dealt with by the nearby pay and display car park

its not as if there are any free spaces , the retailers dont own any land and the driver appears to have failed to observe the signage and did not use the pay and display machines that give out the tickets once a payment is made and the VRM put into the machine

the ANPR cameras are at the entrance/exit and its these that are checked against the payments (or non-payments) made

personally I dont think the EA2010 will help here as there are no concessions as I said earlier , the driver would have had the opportunity and means to pay , but has not done so

I did link the previous thread earlier, plus the OP has had well over 12 to 18 months to prepare for this moment as I personally told the OP what could happen over a year ago

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5182488

alleged non-payment was feb 2015 , so several weeks after Excel moved to the IPC from the BPA (hence no POPLA appeal)

I have posted about this location dozens of times, plus people have been taken to court for it many times over the last 6 years , including the famous one by Martin Cutts about 5 years ago , so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Excel have instigated court action and I did telll the OP this in one of previous replies in the above thread

parking prankster has helped some people deal with court cases there as well as blogging about it , so maybe the OP could contact the BMPA and see if they are interested in helping ?

see this blog http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_02_01_archive.html

so nothing like Beavis but part of the Beavis judgment may help ?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

Coupon-mad

Kayleighb1 wrote: »

The alleged offence was staying in the peel centre car park for 33 minutes without paying

The passenger at the time was breastfeeding a 4 month old
Hence the overstay

The signage at the Peel Centre is a main point of defence still, even after it was changed it is woeful. Definitely to be mentioned. Try searching 'Excel defence' or 'Gladstones defence' on this forum board and freading other examples recently (2016 versions only).

The protection offered to breastfeeding Mums falls only under the sexual discrimination part of the Equality Act 2010 and is not as useful as the disability discrimination provisions. No 'reasonable adjustment' provision exists, just a requirement not to treat breastfeeding Mums adversely compared to other people at large. Worth a mention though as you never know what a Judge will make of it and service providers are required to take steps to avoid indirect discrimination. i.e. where they are unaware of the characteristics of the individual concerned they still have to take steps in advance to ensure that any policy considers the needs of the population generally and act fairly/justify their actions and remove barriers to equality/equity.

since they are not relying on pofa 2012, (can they make that choice),

Yes, as the NEWBIES thread tells you. PPCs do not have to use the POFA wording and deadlines. if they choose not to, they can't hold a keeper liable.

are they allowed to pursue the keeper rather than the driver?

No. But that won't stop the claim ploughing on for now, intimidating the recipient. They hope the keeper will fold and pay up as they are so scared of a court meeting. Are you saying the keeper was not the driver? If so then this will feature in the defence because although Gladstones/Excel might bang on about 'Elliot v Loake' (irrelevant criminal case) in fact no lawful presumption exists that the keeper 'was' the driver as regards private parking 'tickets'.

And if the keeper's defence and (later) witness statement truthfully says they were not the driver and can't be held liable in law because Excel do not follow the POFA, then that makes like very difficult for them as claimant.





P.S. Just to add, there are greedy idiots who trawl this forum for their own ends and might send a private message to posters offering to 'help'. Such posters will never have over 1000 posts to their name and you never know who the idiots are because on t'internet, people can say they are someone they are not, say the opposite of what they mean and generally hide a nasty background/agenda.

So don't reply to any private message about this, Kayleigh. We help on the open forum with appeals and defences and you can't get a better success rate than here or on pepipoo forum, IMHO. The BMPA can also offer free advice.

Kayleighb1

Thank you for your replies red and coupon.

Red, I know you warned me last time I posted, I remember well.

I personally am neither the driver OR the keeper, but this sorry mess has fallen to me to deal with as the keeper isn't able.

Tonight I have acknowledged the claim, appealed to TK maxx to see if they can cancel it (I have done this as we have many many receipts from there, plus I know hobby craft at the peel centre have done so in the past for staff) and emailed Nicola dearden.

Though it seems from your reply redx this is in vain?

I am not saying the keeper was or wasn't the driver. Is ther cctv at the peel centre to confirm or deny who was? Is it required in court to state who was?

I will now be formatting a defence based on the appeal and the dismissal of that appeal, leaving out GPEOL.

Coupon-mad

I hope you acknowledged the claim in the name of the defendant, not your name. You'll have to do this 'as them' if they are not up to it, because you are a third party.

Good luck getting anything from Nicola Dearden... the Peel Centre seem not to care. But no, there is no CCTv evidence that a parking firm can use and they WILL NOT know who was driving, from ANPR pics. It is not required to state who was driving in court and there is no acceptable/lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver. The defendant DOES have to attend if it goes to a hearing though!

But the defence will have to cover the issues about no POFA keeper liability, no evidence of who was driving that day, etc. Don't base your defence on the appeal already made - you must include the legal arguments you'll find when you search and read other Excel claim threads. Show us your draft only after reading at the very least, a dozen other defence threads.

Personally, I'd be looking to read twenty or MORE recent defences before you even start drafting anything. Don't reply to pm's about it.

Kayleighb1

I have read and saved a bunch of defences both here and pepipoo.

In that case. The keeper was not driving

Everything I have done so far (challenge, appeal, acknowledgement) has been in the keepers name. He just isn't capable. He will attend court as the defendant if it comes to that. I just will be there to speak for him.

I will get reading and writing and come back! thank you.

Redx

well done so far, bear in mind that sometimes my comments are aimed at people who read your thread and havent taken the whole scenario on board, or are not familiar with this particular trap and sc@m

well done so far, my next comments are based upon you not being the keeper, plus not being the driver either , so you are a helper only (a lay rep or similar)

as helper , the papers are not in your name and any correspondence etc needs to be by the defendant (apellant) , not you, but you can do the prep work , no problem with that

if Excel take it as far as a court appearance (or you/the defendant do) then the defendant will have to turn up in court, perhaps with you as lay rep acting on their behalf

I am not legally trained but I have read enough threads to know that any "helper" must seek permission from the judge to act as a lay rep , (or McKenzie friend), or whatever the legal terminology is (search for it and read the paperwork and understand the process)

you will see mention of it and links here in pranksters august blog

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_08_01_archive.html

even so, the judge may refuse you leave to speak as lay rep, or he/she may direct the defendant to answer the questions etc , so the defendant must be up to speed on the issues , even though they have the right to "not name the driver" , ie:- no comment

I would assume the driver is aged 18 or over, so is an adult , hence why they have to defend and legally can be held responsible and can be taken to court (very few drivers will be under 18 and in this position but I wont rule it out completely, but the odds must be very small) - to be a driver they would have to be mentally capable and so deemed fit in the eyes of a court, or should not be driving

as Excel have bad signage at the Peel centre (see pranksters blogs) and as Excel dont follow the POFA2012 protocols then this is why the keeper is going to say , throw the case out your honour , because...... blah blah

ie:- its not about "what happened" , although not seeing the signage and the signs failing the CoP will feature anyway , but this talk about feeding a baby is unlikely to wash in court because somebody must have been able to buy a payment ticket at some point and Excel have no obligation to provide free parking to anyone , so they dont , not there , the retailers have no say because they dont own the land and dont provide parking at all

you need to forget about stuff that isnt relevant, like cctv, Excel have no idea who was driving or that person would be being pursued due to that person being responsible for this saga, they dont know so they pursue the keeper

anpr cameras in and out capture the VRM from the reg plate on the vehicle , the ticket machines record a ticket purchase and the person doing it puts in the VRM (hopefully correctly) - or the lack of a ticket matching the VRM on the cameras

computers work out who hasnt paid, who stayed too long etc and a postal pcn is despatched where necessary, including non-payment (and if the VRM is not input correctly at times too)

see this blog by parking prankster 2.5 years ago

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

I agree that you should complain to Texas and to the Peel centre etc , to create a paper trail (as you see on Judge Rinder) , be seen to be doing something to resolve it, plus you may be the first they help , never say never ( although I have more chance of winning a rollover ) - so not "in vain"

you have not said that you have contacted parking prankster or the BMPA either , yet the links I gave you told you that his mailbag is mainly about this honeytrap sc@m park

he may have defences you can use, the BMPA may have the same , they may help you with a lay rep who knows the score, many scenarios may help and you should try for all the help you can get as any victories can be used to help others and they know this so may help you

I sincerely hope you win and I and coupon mad try to lay down the facts , warts and all , so you know the score

so please dont focus on the irrelevant, they are not using cctv in their case, its anpr cameras and the lack of a payment ticket on a pay and display car park

its also nothing like Beavis , who overstayed on a free car park (2 hours maximum free stay) - so again this will form a part of the keepers defence

good luck , and please report back, but never infer who was driving , not here , not anywhere , not in the court case either as far as possible (but dont lie to a judge - lol)

I agree with CM that you need to save , read and study over a dozen or two dozen defences , mainly from this year , 2016 , as previous years defences may include stuff like not a gpeol which pre-date Beavis , so you dont want irrelevant paragraphs , you need up to date 2016 paragraphs , even if its cribbed from UKPC or CEL or PE defences

pepipoo forums is currently awash with similar threads about Excel court claims

like this one

_http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107636

and this one 
_http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106663&st=0&start=0

which is also on here too

and this one

_http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100610&st=0&start=0

and this VCS one

_http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106289&st=0&start=0

The_Deep

Have you ever been to a county court? It is totally different from a Magistrates' or Crown Court.

No wigs no gowns, no witness box, no dock, certainly no flags, just a table where you all sit and the judge, usually a former solicitor, asks you questions and listens to evidence.

It is not even comparable with shouty drama queen Judge Rynder.

Do not be put off by those who say it is a lottery, in my experience, judges are well endowed with common sense and know what the score is with PPCs. They are more than likely to be on your side.

Half_way

I personally am neither the driver OR the keeper, but this sorry mess has fallen to me to deal with as the keeper isn't able.

Tonight I have acknowledged the claim, appealed to TK maxx to see if they can cancel it (I have done this as we have many many receipts from there, plus I know hobby craft at the peel centre have done so in the past for staff) and emailed Nicola dearden.

Though it seems from your reply redx this is in vain?

While complaining to the peel centre may be in vain, as far as putting a stop to Simon Renshaw-Smiths Excel parking's actions it will possibly cause some issues for the Peel centre, even if your tying someone us in dealing the correspondence it would be a start.

I've also noticed that you have stated this:

Everything I have done so far (challenge, appeal, acknowledgement) has been in the keepers name. He just isn't capable. He will attend court as the defendant if it comes to that. I just will be there to speak for him.

Could there be an Equalities act angle to this?
Much as the antics of the private parking world are despicable, those who allow PPCs to act on their land should be made to take full responsibility for the actions of their agents, in pretty much the same way that an owner of a dangerous dog/animal has some responsibility for the actions of his/hear beast.
Its about time the likes of the Peel centre were shamed, and possibly made to pay compensation/financially hit, together with a huge amount of bad PR over the actions of their agents, instead of just passing the buck.