Excel/B W Legal court proceedings

Coupon-mad

No reason why you can't email your documents by tomorrow before 4pm, to ensure they are filed in time.

Schedule 4 of the POFA is linked in the NEWBIES thread but you can also Google it.

Henry Greenslade's words are all over this forum and in one of the Prankster's blogs recently - but equally, you could Google 'POPLA Annual Report 2015' and the heading 'Understanding Keeper Liability' is the one you want to print out to support your position as a non-liable, non-driving keeper.

You will know that the PP and QQ transcripts (or at least one of them, if not both) are among the Parking Prankster's case law because the transcripts are usually are linked in the blogs.

And email a copy to Excel with the wording suggested by hoohoo and invite them to discontinue unless they want to be embarrassed about taking a non-driver to court, who cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be assumed to be the driver! Attach some sort of proof of your DLA and medical condition for the court and Excel. Be really up front with your evidnece and take it with you if they force you to attend a hearing.

I think if you push enough they will discontinue. DO NOT fall for an 'offer to settle the matter' (a giveaway that they are about to fold).

hollieollo

Is there an actual printout available for Excel v Mr B C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016.?

Chris

Coupon-mad

No because it's too recent (most never have a transcript anyway but it was only a fortnight ago) and it's not helpful to you - its just a county court case with no transcript. Forget it, don't randomly read the latest blogs which aren't really relevant. Cases are won and lost every day, don't cite those without a transcript.

You should be looking in the Prankster's blog, case law list, Google it if you can't see where to click.

hollieollo

Thanks for that.
I now have the following pieces of eveidence to submit:-
Judgement printout for Excel v Mrs S in which judgement in favour of the defendant was given. Case refereed to faulty registrations being input to their VRN system.
Copy of Schedule 4.

"And email a copy to Excel with the wording suggested by hoohoo and invite them to discontinue unless they want to be embarrassed about taking a non-driver to court, who cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be assumed to be the driver! Attach some sort of proof of your DLA and medical condition for the court and Excel. Be really up front with your evidnece and take it with you if they force you to attend a hearing."
I have already emailed this to B W Legal.
I also have a defence from another forum member which suggests that Excel are put to strict proof of the identity of the driver. They admit to not using POFA so I am not required to identify the driver other than it was not me. tghey cannot prove that it was me, so that should settle it.
there is a suggestion that I do not offer any evidence and thereby they cannot proceed.
It seems that it is fro Excel to prove i was the driver and they have no proof of that, as they have admitted in their witness statement, bercasue they say that I could identify the driver by a simple process of elimination.
That suggests they have got hold of my insurance details. What they forget is that I can give permission for anybody to drive, and have done so in the past using driver/carers from the local DSS mental health services.
I really just need to know the best way to deal with this without it getting overly confusing.

hollieollo

Also, should I send a copy of my diagnosis from the mental health services NHS Stockport?

Coupon-mad

I'd say yes if you are happy to, make this really clear - you do not drive.

Include all documents attached to an email to Excel themselves (you have their email address from the PCN or the copy of it) pushing for the hearing to be vacated as they have no cause of action against you. Copy in BW Legal to that email.

And separately email the local court or take copies of your documents in person tomorrow if that's convenient. Of course the email subject line (or the folder you take the documents in) must have the claims number and 'Excel Parking Services Ltd v xxxxx (your surname) clearly stated. Documents must be firmly attached together (no paper clips, can't have them detaching from your file) and have a set with you on the day.

hollieollo

Thanks.
I have got everything ready. I will send the emails first thing tomorrow and I will take the documents personally to the court.

Chris

hollieollo

Sorry, I forgot to mention that they mentioned Elliott v Loake [1983] Crim. L.R. 36: as their justification. I read somewhere that has now been discredited, but I cannot find the relevant information.

Coupon-mad

It hasn't been discredited.

It just can be argued not to apply to some random VCS/Excel drivel court case, because E v L was a criminal case with forensic evidence of who was driving, sufficient to confirm that to a criminal standard of evidence. There was no assumption.

Explained in this pepipoo thread which should help:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110301

Basically you must argue it is irrelevant. You cannot assume a Judge will agree so you do need to be familiar with the differences with your case. Which are huge because you do not drive and CANNOT have been the driver.

The_Slithy_Tove

The_Deep wrote: »

That seems a lot of hoops to jump through CM. Are you sure that this is all necessary?

Why not just rock up in court, look the judge in the eye and say "Sir/Madam, I was not the driver, I am unable to drive".

You first have to make sure that is in the defence submitted, else it's "new evidence" which may not be allowed.

Then, you have to make absolutely certain POFA doesn't apply, AND THEN MAKE SURE THE JUDGE UNDERSTANDS THIS TOO. The Prankster had a case recently in his blog where the defendant didn't have a copy of the legislation to hand, so couldn't use that as a defence point.

So, as well as rocking up at court, it all has to be spelled out in words of as few syllables as possible, to make sure everyone can follow the arguments.

Also, the up-front legwork is necessary to ensure the claimant is seen to be acting unreasonably, and thus liable to pay costs.