Excel ignore judge. Case struck out by DJ Lateef

beamerguy

Excel ignore judge. Case struck out by DJ Lateef
Excel v Ms X. Stockport 2016.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/excel-ignore-judge-case-struck-out-by.html

The onus was on the Claimant to prove the Defendant was driving the vehicle.

Excel did not bother to comply with the judgment and the claim was struck out by DJ Lateef. CLAIM STRUCK OUT 13th Feb 2017

And thereby is the problem for Excel ???

The day is fast coming that every judge in the land will have their time wasted by Excel

Lamilad

beamerguy wrote: »

Excel ignore judge. Case struck out by DJ Lateef
Excel v Ms X. Stockport 2016.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/excel-ignore-judge-case-struck-out-by.html

The onus was on the Claimant to prove the Defendant was driving the vehicle.

Excel did not bother to comply with the judgment and the claim was struck out by DJ Lateef. CLAIM STRUCK OUT 13th Feb 2017

And thereby is the problem for Excel ???

The day is fast coming that every judge in the land will have their time wasted by Excel

"DJ Lateef?... Feels like I've heard that name before.... So said Mr Renshaw-Smith

Umkomaas

The 'Battle of the Forms' argument will be useful for future incorrect VRM cases. Very succinctly, and in laymen's terms, explained by HO87:

The PPC set out its terms: You can park in consideration of your paying according to the standard tariff and by inputting you registration number.

Customer: (in effect - summarised and simplified for ease of illustration) OK. I'll park in exchange for payment based on your tariff but I'll put in a different registration number.

In so doing the customer has in effect offered to contract on differing terms which by performance (the actions of the PPC in accepting the payment) the PPC has accepted.

The "Battle of the Forms" involved two companies negotiating a contract with each other where each company wanted to settle on the terms of their differing standard contracts. Company A purported to accept the terms of company B whilst actually intending to use its own and vice versa. In such cases it is generally accepted that the party that succeeds is that that fires the last shot, so to speak. In this case the customer offered the payment and did not put in his own registration number contrary to the terms offered by the PPC but the PPC nevertheless accepted the consideration. It was the customer who thus fired the last shot.

Neatly followed by a 'reverse Beavis' - the PCN must therefore be a PENALTY.

Checkmate!

beamerguy

Let us not forget the aptly named Mr Pickup who represents EXCEL.

He goes in to TRY and "pick up" the pieces for this highly flawed company

It has got to the point that anyone attacked by Excel in a retail park should now direct the retailer to the Parking Prankster so they can read for themselves about this so called parking company