Appeal dismissed by IAS

Coupon-mad

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I am thinking about making a counter claim. I'm not sure how it works. If I lose the main claim would my counter claim automatically fall through or could I still win the counter claim? I actually think that my counter claim looks stronger than my defence to the claimant.

A counter-claim for harassment would be a struggle because the parking firm had 'reasonable cause' to get your data from the DVLA (or you gave it to them) and they are entitled to use debt collectors to pursue a 'debt', and will say they believed there was a debt owed, and they'll cite the Beavis case and will not agree they harassed you.

Hard work. Better perhaps to defend this claim (no counter claim) and IF YOU WIN then you could start a small claim for the same price as a counter claim (£25 court fee, then £25 hearing fee) and with the proof of the pudding being the court case won...

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I did notice that Excel have had issues with their meters at other sites at best this is very poor customer service and at worst it's entrapment. Interesting that Excel seem to issue a lot of tickets at the Peel Centre. Could have added to the demise of stores like Toy's R Us.

I honestly believe the rise of the parking 'industry' IS partly responsible (and not in a small way) for the demise of retail parks and large retailers.

People who have been stung by parking firms will often NEVER go back, or if they do, they leave early, never go from shop to shop in a relaxed way making impulse buys and browsing for large purchases any more. Custom is undoubtedly lost, as is the goodwill and enjoyment in shopping and seeing/trying products in person.

People don't realise they can still do that, simply by covering their number-plate when leaving!

Instead, shoppers go online and browse from their armchairs, without some scum firm breathing down their necks and demanding £100 for 'staying too long on a website'!

Snakes_Belly

Thank you CM. I think that you are right about the counter claim. I also agree about the High Street and there will be more casualties yet. Let's hope that some of the parking companies are amongst them.

I have not used the car park in question again. I now use a small private car park that has been opened up by a landowner on a piece of land adjoining their property. There is an old telephone box where you obtain and small envelope in which you place the fee, write your reg. on the envelope and then post it into a post box. No machines or small print. It must be a nice little earner for the landowner as there is no parking management company to pay. It naturally would not work everywhere.

Coupon-mad

That is a perfect little income stream for that landowner and very fair that they do this, fair to drivers and fair to them. Wish more would see that if you treat drivers with respect and don't fine them, you might actually make your land work for you.

Astonishing how many people, landowners, retailers, hotels, Motorway Services, ports, railway TOCs and the Government, believe the crap about the Country being full of 'rogue parkers' about to park on your drive and go off all day.

This Country is plagued by rogue parking firms, not rogue parkers.

The PPCs even cite 'blue badge abuse' to prop up their outrageous scams, even though that is Council only and has precisely NOTHING to do with them at all.

In fact a BB 'abuser' in the true sense (a person using their dead grandma's badge, for example) would be allowed to park with impunity by a scumbag parking firm, whereas a real disabled needy person with a medical condition (and a slipped BB they knocked off their dash because they are unsteady when alighting) gets fined £100 with no chance of appeal.

Snakes_Belly

I responded to the LBC sent by Excel within the timeframe which was by the 12/6/2018. I posted the letter on the 7/6/2018 first class post and obtained a proof of posting. In my rebuttal letter I requested further information on several matters. Excel have failed to respond within the 30 days. The Protocol states,

5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must

1. provide the document or information; or
2. explain why the document or information is unavailable,

within 30 days of receipt of the request.


My request has now been well over 30 days and I have not received any information from Excel. If they have not got the authority from the landowner then are their actions 'ultra vires' beyond their powers?


Also should I send another letter requesting the information again? Really now I wish they would either put up or shut up.

Coupon-mad

I'd send an email (no more stamps) saying what's happened and that you now reasonably consider they have dropped the case, and you will forward the entire exchange to your MP to complain about the industry's harassment and extortion operated against ordinary people.

I still expect they will sue. But your responses will show you were active in pre-court exchanges.

Snakes_Belly

Thank you. There are quite a number of complaints on Trip Advisor about this car park which will add to my case. Permits are issued (not in my case) but these permits are not valid during the day so visitors to the Travelodge have to put a ticket on in the morning. Needless to say there is a man waiting to pounce on anyone who exceeds their permit.

Snakes_Belly

'I refer to your Letter before claim dated 15th May 2018 and my rebuttal letter 7th June 2017 (proof of posting obtained).

Within my letter I requested information from you which has not been forthcoming. I refer you to section 5 of the Protocol, Disclosure of Documents which states:-

5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor;s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each others position.

5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must

• (a) provide the document or information; or
• (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,
  Within 30 days of receipt of the request.
  
  I have not received any of the information requested in my letter of the 7th June including the authority from the landowner to pursue this claim though the courts.
  
  I now reasonably consider that you have dropped the case.
  
  Also be aware that I shall be forwarding the entire exchange to my MP to complain about the industry's harassment and extortion operated against ordinary people.'
• 
  

I sent the above letter to Excel yesterday after waiting a few more days to see if there was a response to my rebuttal letter. It has been well over 30 days since they would have received my letter in response to the LBC. If they do take me to court am I right in thinking that I can ask for a stay until the information is provided? As they haven't complied then my understanding is that there is an impact on costs. Not sure how that works.

Coupon Mad said to go through the COP with a tooth comb which I did. Also said to send a robust rebuttal letter, which I also did. I don't know if it was robust enough to see it off. I did wonder if they don't have authority from the landowner.

Fruitcake

Have you had a rely from your MP yet, and/or a rely from the MP for the constituency where the alleged event took place?
If they are different you should have complained to both, telling them about the loss of income to local business and the trapadvisor comments.

Snakes_Belly

I have not written to my MP yet but I intend to and I will also forward a letter to the MP where the car park is located. Have also considered writing to the landowner if I can find out who they are. They may be located in the US. There are 18 comments on Trip Advisor about this car park and I shall be including them all in my defence. This is an extract from one of them.

'Whilst I got sympathy from Travelodge after complaining, they said it was a matter for the landlord and private parking company. My issue is that Travelodge (as majority leasor of the site) must have some influence on the behaviour of the parking attendants (it should be brought up on lease renewal) as otherwise it will reduce patronage of the hotel in favour of others in the area without such issues (such as the Premier Inn). If travelling by Rail its fine - otherwise use somewhere outside the centre'

The car park is not purely for visitors to the Travelodge. Rail users (like myself) also use the car park. When the car park first opened they undercut the station car parks to attract people. The income from the car park lease is paid to the Travelodge but neither Excel or the Travelodge own the land.

System

The income from the car park lease is paid to the Travelodge

Are you sure about that. AFAIR there is quite a complex set of arrangements where a Private Equity company own the lot and lease the various bits to operators based on their specialities. So Travelodge rent the hotel bits and Excel lease the car park.

The local council will tell you who pays the rates as it is usually a good indication but not 100%. Property leases can be complex.