Excel/BW Legal Claim - wrong VRM recorded

Coupon-mad

also bwlegal randomly quoted this in a letter, do I need to cover it in my defence? its about leasehold valuations and doesn't seem relevant

Chaplair v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798

Search the forum for Kumari, already done several times over.

Searching is very often better than asking, on here, as we are so busy but it's all been said & done before on other threads. Seek and you will find.

xlrage

Ok I've reworked my defence to the best of my ability, again the formatting has not copied across. dates and details have been changed.


Thanks again in advance

---

• A parking ticket was purchased and displayed by the defendant. This ticket has been retained and will be presented as evidence. Since the parking fee was paid, there was no breach of contract and no loss was incurred by claimant- there is no commercial justification for the amount claimed, £261.24.

• The defendant responded to the PCN and Informed Excel parking at the time by telephone and email informing them that a ticket had been paid for and included the issue number so they could trace it on their system. The claimant acted unreasonably by offering little explanation for rejecting the appeal other than the defendant did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket. No specific details were provided as the why they had come to this conclusion.

• Bw Legal later revealed that the original appeal had been received and rejected as the VRN entered was recorded as “59” and the ticket was invalid. The defendant was not aware of this when purchasing the ticket.

It is the defendant's opinion that the vehicle registration was mis-recorded by the machine and that it only detected the numeric digits entered.
There is precedent that a number of ticket machines managed by Excel Parking Services Ltd. are at fault and result in erroneous recordings of registration:
Claim no. C8DP11F9 – Excel v Mrs S – 09/09/2016, Oldham Court
Claim No. C8DP36F0 Excel v Ms C

In both the above these cases the judge dismissed the claim, ruling that the defendant on the balance of probabilities entered their registration correctly:
I am satisfied that the ticket then produced is the ticket that she has produced to the court. It was through no fault of hers that this ticket displayed the letters “QQ” instead of her registration number. She obtained a ticket. She made the payment to obtain that. She displayed that ticket. It shows the relevant time of entry. It shows the amount that she has paid and it shows the registration number that the ticket machine produced. It would have been unreasonable to expect the defendant to do anything further beyond that as far as I am concerned. The registration number is not accurately reflected but that is through no fault on the part of the defendant and I find on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had inputted the correct registration number and she had then displayed the ticket that was issued and so to all intents and purposes had fully complied with the terms and conditions applicable to this car park. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss the claim.

• When the registration number was mis-recorded by the ticket machine then the claimant has accepted new terms. By accepting monies when the claimant knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, the registration recorded did not belong to a car in the car park, the claimant has by its action accepted by performance a revised contract.

• The claimant’s subsequent financial loss could have been avoided by checking for outstanding unmatched tickets before issuing the PCN.

• The amount claimed has been constantly inconsistent.

The claimant continued to send demands for varying unsubstantiated amounts and from various other agencies.

Excel Parking 27/2/12 £60.00
Excel Parking 18/5/12 £100.00
Roxburghe debt collectors 9/7/12 £142.00
Graham White Solicitors 19/7/12 £207.25
Graham White Solicitors 30/7/12 £142.00
BW Legal 15/7/16 £154.00

• The claimant has waited over 5 years to file this claim and has not been actively managing the account. There was zero correspondence from the claimant since 30/7/12 until the defendant was contacted by BW Legal 15/7/16. If the claimant felt there case was so strong they should have brought it years before now.

• The defendant was contacted by BW Legal in July 2016. The defendant again replied to their communications and sent a copy of the purchased ticket within the required 14 days however it then took the claimant an unreasonable 4.5 months to respond.

• The proper claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.

• Excel Parking Services Ltd are/were not the lawful occupier of the land. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

• This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

• The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
  
  The claimant has acted entirely unreasonably, this case should be considered as de minimis and not worthy of the court's time. Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.