Excel Parking Defence

cleb1

Hi,


I am working on this for a friend. She has received a claim form from Excel Parking (from BW Legal), after ignoring all of the previous warnings. It is in relation to the Peel Centre, in Stockport. I have acknowledged Service and am now preparing a defence.


I note that there are defence precedents and advice on here, however, before I dive in, I wanted to check something.




On the particulars of claim, Excel have the completely wrong year. They had previously quoted the correct year on their correspondence, however, at some point (probably an admin error) the year changed on the correspondence and now the claim form/particulars of claim.


My question is, do I need to go to the hassle of submitting a full defence, or can I simply do a one liner to the effect of 'the defendant denies that a parking offence was committed and a parking notice issued in relation to an alleged parking offence on (insert date here)? (obviously not telling them the correct date)


As their particulars are incorrect, I am assuming that they will need to either re-serve, or apply to get them amended, at which point I can put forward a full defence?


Any thoughts please? Would I be in danger simply doing the one line defence?


Thank you,


Cleb1

Redx

at this stage you need to submit a short bullet point defence , not a full defence, thats step one regardless

I would not rely on a single point defence as you cannot add extra points later

so you draft a holding defence (skeleton defence) based on various legal arguments you will expand on later down the process

post #1 of the newbies sticky thread has a court sub-section that you should read, and also the bargepole link, plus read parking pranksters court guide

then find about twenty 2016 court defences on here and pepipoo and draft the holding defence from those , in other words read recent but only 2016 court "holding" defences and use those to draft yours

the forum search box on here and over at pepipoo forums will assist you

I suppose just the typo could get it thrown out but they may well try to amend it after checking their facts

you are at a similar stage to this one so check the advice in there too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505546

Coupon-mad

You posted this elsewhere, needs to be here:

cleb1 wrote: »

Hi Coupon mad, I wonder if you could help me. I've got a case in a fortnight and I note that you raised no evidence of 'failure to pay and display' by the unknown driver.


I'm being really dumb here but can you please elaborate on how they would adduce evidence of failure to pay and display? Do you mean a list of all payments made at the time of entry on the ticket (and therefore evidence that the VR in question was missing?).


Also regarding POFA, I was the registered keeper but not the driver. I have said this in my defence and witness statement and quoted Greenslade. Non-compliance with schedule 4 is one of my main defences.


I note that people have said that Excel either need to identify the driver or if not, serve a POFA compliant notice to keeper. I have quoted sections 6 and 9 of schedule, i.e. there has been a breach of 9(2)(b) which states that "the notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking" I have stated that this is impossible, since they have not identified the driver. I have also highlighted a breach of 9(2)(c) which states that the notice must "describe the parking charges due from the driver, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of the driver". There was no mention of how the requirement to pay was brought to the driver's attention, therefore I have stated that this has been breached. Finally, 9 (2)(e) stated that the notice must state that "the creditor does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service of the driver". This too has been breached. However, I suspect that they will say how would they identify individual drivers and know the difference between who is the registered keeper/driver and currently I don't have a response to this?


I have quite a lot more info in my statement and am happy with arguing that, but am a bit hazy on these two points.


Can coupon mad or anybody else assist please?


I am being quite vague on here and not typing exact copies of my witness statement as ~I note that Excel may be reading.


Thanks,

Have you submitted your WITNESS STATEMENT ANS EVIDENCE, not later than 14 days before the hearing (no, not your defence)? Read the NEWBIES thread post #2 about what to when and what it should say/look like & include.

cleb1

Hi Coupon Mad, thanks for the response.


Yes, witness statement has been filed within the deadline using this forum and my own knowledge. I included the sections about the above 2 points but need some further armory I think, to be able to expand upon the points at the hearing!


Thanks,

Lamilad

cleb1 wrote: »

need some further armory I think, to be able to expand upon the points at the hearing!

What is it specifically you want to know? You can certainly expand on your defence/ WS points orally at the hearing and/or you can submit a skeleton argument (see Newbies thread) but you can't introduce new arguments/defence points

cleb1

Hi Lamilad,


Thanks for the response.


I have two areas in my witness statement that I will need to discuss at the hearing but currently I am not 100% on them.


1. In another thread, Coupon Mad mentioned that the parking company have raised no evidence of failure to pay and display by the driver.


If the judge asks how they would adduce such evidence, am I right in thinking that they could have listed all payments made at the time of entry on the ticket, and therefore evidence that the VR in question was missing?


2. The second and final query is regarding POFA. I was the registered keeper but not the driver. I have said this in my defence and witness statement and quoted Greenslade. Non-compliance with schedule 4 is one of my main defences.

I note that people have said that Excel either need to identify the driver or if not, serve a POFA compliant notice to keeper. I have quoted sections 6 and 9 of schedule, i.e. there has been a breach of 9(2)(b) which states that "the notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking" I have stated that this is impossible, since they have not identified the driver. I have also highlighted a breach of 9(2)(c) which states that the notice must "describe the parking charges due from the driver, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of the driver". There was no mention of how the requirement to pay was brought to the driver's attention, therefore I have stated that this has been breached. Finally, 9 (2)(e) stated that the notice must state that "the creditor does not know the name of the driver and a current address for service of the driver". This too has been breached.


However, I suspect that they will say how would they identify individual drivers and know the difference between who is the registered keeper/driver and currently I don't have a response to this?


Thank you

Coupon-mad

am I right in thinking that they could have listed all payments made at the time of entry on the ticket, and therefore evidence that the VR in question was missing?

Yes - and remember there is more than one machine. So IMHO, one list is only ONE machine (I suspect Excel have been showing just one list in 2 cases I know of, could be wrong...).

I suspect that they will say how would they identify individual drivers and know the difference between who is the registered keeper/driver

Tough on them! It is their case to prove and if they wanted to hold a keeper liable there is a law they could have used (but choose not to use the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 statutory wording on their PCNs). It was their choice from 2014 to restrict themselves only to driver liability. Not your problem.