PRE POFA Parking Fine BW Legal/ Excel

Lamilad

2. [strike]The date of the alleged incident is 21/09/2012, which is nearly 5 years ago. I am perplexed as to why the Claimant waited until now, almost 5 years after the alleged contravention, to bring proceedings. How can anyone be expected to remember where he or she may have parked a car on one random day five years ago? I am unable to identify the driver not only due the significant time passed but also due to the fact that I have many friends and family whom could have used my car.[/strike]
The claimant cannot state on the balance of probabilities that the Keeper was the Driver. Many of my friends and family could have used my vehicle. Most Insurance policies provide third party liability cover for policyholders to allow them to drive [strike]a[/strike] other vehicles with the owners permission [strike]belonging to someone else.[/strike]. This is know as the "driving other cars"(DoC) extension [strike]Nor am I under any obligation to name a driver even if I knew who it was, which I don’t.[/strike]. I have stated here, under statement of truth, that I was not the driver. This assertion will be repeated in my witness statement (WS), and orally in court.

beamerguy

Nraw100 wrote: »

. You guys are great.

Bet Simon Renshaw-Smith used to say that about BWLegal:rotfl:

What a difference a day makes folks

Lamilad

3. Furthermore The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. It can be seen the date of the alleged contravention is 21/09/2012, which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

Remove "surely"

4. In a letter to me dated xxxxxx BW Legal stated that their client Excel does not rely on POFA 2012. [strike]In that case they must provide evidence I was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention on 21/9/2012. I have seen no such evidence.[/strike] A perplexing comment considering that POFA was not in force at the time, therefore it would be impossible for them to rely on it.

Lamilad

5. Furthermore Excel do not use the keeper liability provisions of POFA 2012 and so attempt to rely on the assumptions that the keeper was the driver (Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 Sheffield 14/3/2016). Again Excel must provide evidence I was the driver.

You're repeating yourself. Save this for your WS

beamerguy

Lamilad wrote: »

Remove "surely"

4. In a letter to me dated xxxxxx BW Legal stated that their client Excel does not rely on POFA 2012. [strike]In that case they must provide evidence I was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention on 21/9/2012. I have seen no such evidence.[/strike] A perplexing comment considering that POFA was not in force at the time, therefore it would be impossible for them to rely on it.

Yes, that carries a lot more importance

Lamilad

7. The claim form itself gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending this claim that has caused significant time and distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

This needs to go at, or somewhere near, the beginning

Lamilad

9. Excel is known for unfair and unacceptable practices at its car parks. I have not been told or shown any evidence of which car park this case refers to. The correspondence I have received refers to “Broomhill – Sheffield Anpr Charging Scheme Std (60-100)”. I have no idea what location or car parking area (I assume it is some kind of car parking area) this refers to? I have therefore done a Google search on Excel and Broomhill and discovered significant problems with a roof top car park in Broomhill.

10. As I have not been shown any evidence of which car park this case refers to I can only make assumptions that the car park above is the car park in question. Assuming this is the car park, I am aware from publicity and through a local councillor and Life Peer that the ticket-machines at this site in 2012 were prone to be faulty. I will include in my evidence articles and commentary that will show this.

11. Problems arose at the car park, above shops in Fulwood Road, because of the way Excel monitored vehicles, which are filmed on entry and exit. Motorists were asked to key in their number plate when buying a ticket - but, in some cases, they have mixed letters 'I' and 'O' with numbers one and zero. If the registration number on a ticket does not match exactly that on a vehicle, as seen by the cameras, Excel's computer system automatically posted a £100 fine. Fines have also been issued when vehicles have driven onto the car park but the ticket machine has been broken, or where motorists over-stayed by a few minutes because they thought the time they had paid for was from when the ticket was purchased. Excel's system counted from the time the vehicle entered the car park.

12. Please note that registration number of the car at the time was xxxxxxx (It has a O in it) . The driver of the car at the time, which was not me, may well have been caught out by the unfair practices named above, assuming this was the car park.

Too much 'chatter' here. Keep it on point:
"Due to the sparse and incoherent Particulars of Claim (PoC) it is impossible for the defendant to be sure of the location involved in this claim. From a previous letter I suspect it could be the Broomhill car pak, off Fulwood Road, Sheffield.

This car park is well known in the local community for having faulty ticket machines and for issuing speculative PCNs to motorists who acted in good faith to pay for for their parking. Typical faults include the machined being out of order meaning the driver cannot pay but is still issued with a PCN, and Issuing pay & display tickets with characters which were not typed in, as in the case of Mrs S, C8DP11F9, which involved another Excel car park notorious for faulty machines and issuing spurious PCNs. Excel are also on record acknowledging that a reasonable person could easily make a minor mistake when entering their VRN such as pressing the letter 'O' instead of the number '0'.

Such is the extent of Excel's well known problems with the Broomhill Car Park - they have been reported in regional newspapers and are known to the local Councillor. Evidence from these sources will be adduced with my witness statement.

Lamilad

22. It is submitted that [strike](apart from properly incurred court fees)[/strike] the added 'contractual costs' of £54 and the £50 legal representative's costs are simply numbers made up and are an attempt again at double recovery by the Claimant.

23. [strike]Again[/strike] as I have not been shown any evidence of which car park this case refers to I have also no knowledge that the signs in the car park referred to the amounts claimed. [strike]Again[/strike] this claimant is known for unfair and unacceptable practices in its signage that is incapable of forming a contract. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v M R Cutts at Stockport County Court in 2011, claim 1SE02795, DDJ Lateef dismissed the claim by Excel and ordered the company to pay Mr Cutts' £53.50 costs. The Judge personally visited the site to view the signs in situ and found that the key issue was that Excel had not taken reasonable steps to draw to Mr Cutts’ attention to the terms and conditions of using the car park. I will include in my evidence, Mr Cutts' own published article '‘Phoney fines and dodgy signs take drivers for a ride’’ that is specifically about Excel's signs.

Nraw100

Thanks Lamilad I will make amends

ParkingFun

how did you get on? Have you heard back?