Excel PCN NTK - Now a Default CCJ

beamerguy

abedegno wrote: »

Hi,

So as expected my IAS appeal was rejected on the 15th June. I have had no further correspondence from Excel until today when they sent me a notice of intended court proceedings attached below.

I'm unsure what, if anything, I should write as a response now. I should add that during the appeals I continued to not name the driver.

Thanks

Abe

http://imgur.com/a/FN0d5

As you know, the IAS/IPC is a scam run by Gladstones solicitors,
and that is why Excel subscribe to this scam setup

The only purpose to appeal to the IAS is to show a court that
you tried .... apart from that the IAS are simply a scam

You can tell Excel to the cows come home that you deny this and Excel will ignore you

Next step is the cowbody passing this to BWLegal who may threaten you with complete rubbish ... and it's the lies and rubbish they spout that should be passed to Trading Standards

The only time you should take notice is if you receive real court papers and at that point help by experts is available for free here.

It may not be BWLegal because they have failed Excel many times
but rest assured they are incompetent which judges have seen
many many times

Umkomaas

So as expected my IAS appeal was rejected on the 15th June.

Are you going to let us see what the IAS said?

abedegno

What the IAS said seemed to be pretty boiler plate stuff:

"Parking at this car park is provided on a pay and display or pay online basis to motorists who follow the land owner's wishes, to all other users there is a parking charge. The land owner has authorised the parking operator to manage parking. The wishes of the land owner are expressed in the form of strict terms which are advertised throughout the car park. This constitutes a contractual offer to motorists which they accept the moment they park. One of the terms is that motorists must both purchase and display a valid pay and display ticket or make a valid online payment otherwise the driver will incur a parking charge.

The Operator claims that the Appellant was parked without a valid pay and display ticket on display or having made an online payment for at least 10 minutes and is able to prove this by way of the evidence provided to this appeal. The terms of this appeal procedure are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms of parking are complied with. I have considered the correspondence sent to the Appellant I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly served and that the correspondence complies with current guidelines.

Various documents have been provided by the Operator, all of which I have considered. I am satisfied to the required standard that the signage on site complies with current regulations. I am satisfied that the Appellant has been made reasonably aware of the terms contained within these signs and I am satisfied that the signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The Operator is able to show their signage at the entrance and throughout the site.

The evidence provided by the parking operator confirms that the appellant's car was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket and without having made an online payment. Since it is an express term of the use of this car park that motorists must display a valid ticket or make an online payment and the Appellant was given notice of this, I am unable to interfere with the decision of the Operator to issue the parking charge.

Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.

beamerguy

And this is what happens when a kangaroo court run by Gladstones
supports one of their members and is not independent.

However many times in a REAL court the evidence of Excel and the infamous BWLegal is rubbished

Just wait now, in the meantime get the real story on paper and be ready to defend if they do go further

Coupon-mad

No worries, you were never going to win at IAS except with rare cases with an unusual fact to include in the appeal (not mitigation). This changes nothing and the PPC are not worthy of your money, do not pay. As you said earlier:

I may probably end up in court if I fail so want to keep some of those points better discussed in court as reserve.

abedegno

Thanks, everyone. Having reviewed this forum and others I've drafted a response to the latest correspondence, I'd appreciate thoughts on this:

Your recent template correspondence dated 17/07/2017 is noted.It is important that I make you aware that your company cannot invoke keeper liability in this case because your Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of POFA.

Where a parking charge involves a Notice to Driver (windscreen ticket), the Notice to Keeper MUST NOT BE DELIVERED sooner than 28 days after the alleged contravention and no later than 56 days after the alleged contravention. Your Notice to Keeper was issued too soon for it to comply with POFA - that is, it was issued seven days after the alleged contravention. You cannot, therefore, invoke keeper liability.

As the registered keeper’s vehicle is insured for business use, with multiple named drivers, and there is no legal obligation to name the driver, cancellation is the only reasonable course of action.

You are now on record as being informed that your NtK is not POFA compliant and that any further action by your company against the keeper is erroneous.

Any subsequent County Court Claim against the keeper will be defended resolutely requiring strict evidence against the driver which has not been provided. Key cases will also be cited by the defendant including:
• Excel v Mr W. C7DP8T7D at Stockport 10/07/2017
• Excel v Mr B. C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016.
Costs against you will also be claimed in any subsequent County Court case.

Further, as this matter is causing myself and my family considerable distress and you no longer have reasonable cause to hold my data on your system, under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act you must remove my data from your systems and that of your agents and confirm you have done so within 21 days.

Failure to respond is a breach of the relevant section of the Data Protection Act and will be reported to the ICO.

This may result in sanctions being taken out against you, including suspension of your licence as a Data Controller. This could have an adverse effect on your business.
You should treat this as a Formal Section 10 Notification and pass to your Data Controller.
I now consider this matter closed. Do not write to me again, save to confirm your compliance with the Section 10 Notification.

Coupon-mad

I like that, keep it up!

abedegno

Thanks - again, I've come across differing opinions but should I send the letter marked as:
- Without prejudice
- Without prejudice, except as to costs
- Nothing?

Thanks

Abe

Quentin

Don't you mean prejudice, not "compromise"?

abedegno

Doh - yes - I've had a busy week and I'm very tired.