Judgement for claimant - Excel parking

beamerguy

catfunt wrote: »

We don't know the full picture here with the OP's father - it's possible that he did not fully appreciate what was going on, for whatever reason, so lets not go making statements about "holding the court in contempt" or whatever.

Exactly .... hopefully the OP will return here

The_Slithy_Tove

catfunt wrote: »

There will be no court date - Excel have already obtained a default judgment. There is the possibility of getting the judgment set aside and having the case heard properly in some circumstances.

A possibility, yes. But it won't be easy. As it is admitted that court papers were received, but ignored, it's going to be an uphill struggle explaining to a court why it should now be set aside.

Redx

I agree with umkomaas and TD and slithy tove here , its past the parking stage if there is a CCJ letter and claim for £260

a set aside will cost the father £255 for a set aside request , which may not be refunded unless they won and claimed costs

so its a £255 punt to try for a set aside for a £260 claim

I am not sure its worth it and maybe the defendant should pay up , be warned about their "parking" behaviour , steps taken to avoid a repeat in future , etc (medical condition or not)

as mentioned earlier , this forum is not legal beagles and the OP isnt going to get barristers and lawyers frequenting this forum just in case a newbie needs help , especially not when they want that help pro bono

if it had been a plumbers bill, maybe they would have posted on a DIY forum ?

the parking issue is a distant memory and may not feature in what they do next

but a £255 punt for £260 ??? not sure its worth it

however , maybe a counter claim due to being a protected person under the EA2010 may be an idea ? - fight fire with fire and claim £1500 for starters ?

Umkomaas

if it had been a plumbers bill, maybe they would have posted on a DIY forum ?

I think in that position, I'd be more inclined to seek out a forum where real legal advice might be available rather than chancing one which tells you how to knock a nail into a piece of wood, or how to clear an S-bend blockage! :rotfl:

The_Slithy_Tove

Redx wrote: »

however , maybe a counter claim due to being a protected person under the EA2010 may be an idea ? - fight fire with fire

That's been suggested as cheaper than an appeal in a case lost against UKPC on Pepipoo. Could work. You'd need to go for the principal, i.e. whoever employed Excel in the first place. An LBA to them, citing the Equalities Act may make them sit up and watch. However, again there may be a struggle to show how their costs were mitigated.

Coupon-mad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

A possibility, yes. But it won't be easy. As it is admitted that court papers were received, but ignored, it's going to be an uphill struggle explaining to a court why it should now be set aside.

Perhaps he could use, for the set aside application, the same argument (forgetfulness due to old age or impairment) that was mentioned in the set aside/defence shown by the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

''4. Original Judgment in this Action
4.1 The Defendant suffers from a disability arising from head and brain injuries sustained in an accident many years ago since when he receives disability benefits by virtue of his restricted mental capacity. He has tendencies to be forgetful and is confused in some circumstances. His impairments may have been evident to the Judge in the hearing of 19th February 2016. For these reasons, as is evidenced in the Defendant’s witness statement the original court papers were put aside and forgotten. There was no deliberate intention to avoid dealing with those papers. The Defendant apologises to both the Court and the Claimant in this regard.''


Hopefully he might qualify for waiver of court fees for the set aside too:

https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees

HTH

parkingwoes_2

Honeybeez3 wrote: »

Advice needed posting on behalf of my disabled pensioner father.
He has failed to tell me in April 2015 he rec'd a parking ticket. Basically he has a pacemaker and was having chest pains so pulled in to the car park for 10-15 mins until they eased, never got a ticket ( as got a blue badge).
He has received various letters from excel parking. Then Bw Legal then a claim form from County court business centre Northampton. All of which he ignored and failed to show me.
He has now received a judgement for claimant and it states if ignored goods can be removed from your house which has frightened him hence he has now shown me all the letters.
What and is there anything we can do as he is really stressed and can't afford the £260 they are demanding he has a court date, will get one? Will bailiffs come?

When was the judgment dated ?

There is little time to pay this before this remains on the credit file of your father (although obtaining credit may not be relevant at this age).

The bailiffs will not come if the judgment is paid within the time frame. The parking company will also have to apply for the judgment to be enforced if not paid.

Whilst there is a chance that the judgment may be set aside, this is by no means cut and dried or guaranteed and the fact that your father did receive the paperwork will not go in his favour. Whilst there have been many successful set asides, there have been known a number of set aside applications which have also been refused.

Your father will need to attend court at a hearing for the set aside and will also need to complete form N244

Whilst the option to use the EA2010 as a reason for not responding to the claim can be used you would naturally need to tweak this to suit this particular case and the fact that your father needed to rest with his heart condition. This also then opens up the case that the driver is clearly identified in the claim.

As has been already mentioned the set aside fee is £255 and it is scandalous the increase in the last three years for this charge which has jumped from £80 to £155 (last year) to £255 this year and is detrimental to the consumer particularly those on lower incomes.