9 months after alleged parking contravention I get a Final Reminder from Excel!

onlyfoolsandparking

And you must (if given the chance) point all their procedural failings out to the Judge when you finally get to see him/her.


How can this be right or even allowed? OP is Litigant in person and Claimant is supposed?? to be professional.


I hope the Judge tears them a new one and awards maximum costs to defendant.

Coupon-mad

Did you get your costs for attending reserved (so they are take into account at the next hearing), as the adjournment was caused by the Claimant's lies to their hired rep?

You really did not need or want an adjournment and it is unfair on you.

Snakes_Belly

I am following this with interest as I wondered what legal representative that they would use. I will be up against them soon. Good luck with your case.

System

You'll have time to check on that contract then. Get in touch with DBC and ask who pays the non-domestic rates for the car park there.

Denton rules are for where there was missing paperwork rather than "found" paperwork.

Snakes_Belly

Yes, do what IamEmanre says because I could not find that Excel were paying business rates on the car park in my case even though they seem to have some kind of lease/contract. I have asked for copies of the contract on numerous occasions but nothing has been forthcoming. It's annoying that you only have this at the last minute.

On page five of the WS they state that there have authority to issue parking charges but I could not see where they state that they have authority to pursue these charges through the courts. I am no expert on this but I thought that there was a recent case whereby there was a differentiation between having authority to issue parking charges and to pursue those charges through the courts.

Snakes_Belly

Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking. Excels signs contain huge amounts of text some of it very small and in garish colours. How are you suppose to read that from a car? They are clutching straws with that one.

They appear to have taken the Vine case out of context.

I don't understand who the claimant is? Perhaps I am missing something however on page 4 at the bottom of the page it refers to Excel appointing the Claimant to manage parking? Is this a VCS contract with the leaseholder? There is a case where the signs say one company and the contract says another. Just a thought and I am no expert. VCS and Excel are owned by the same person however my understanding is that they are separate entities.

Surely if you have asked to see a document then they should provide it not some cobbled up in house document that's not worth the paper it's written on.

grumpyawldwifey

Could the solicitor firm be called Ash? The guy was from Bishop Auckland, a self-employed advocate who got sent mine and a couple other of today's cases to represent. I was the only Excel case . Another I know was a Gladstone's one. I wish I didn't have such a rubbish memory!
CM, I didn't specifically ask for my costs to be reserved but I did say that I would lose anothar day's pay and the guy who was representing Excel advised that I take a pay slip with m next time.
They refused to provide their "commercially sensitive' contract stating that they'd provided it to the BPA or IPC who were happy with ir so that should suffice.
I've had a look at the business rates spreadsheet, the council have the Feethams Multi Story on Beaumont Street. There is no mention of business rates being paid on the leisure car park. I know, thanks to Upsidedowner, that the landowner is 'Threadneedle Property Investments' Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London, EC4N 6AG.
BUT
The agent acting for them is Rodney Witton (Savills based in Birmingham)
Tel 0121 200 4509
Rod.Witton@savills.com

Savills
55 Colmore Row
Birmingham
West Midlands
B3 2AA

I tried contacting him but he was as good as a chocolate fireguard.
There are business rates being paid on one of the units by Threadneedle Pensions

Umkomaas

Could the solicitor firm be called Ash?

Or another arboreal specimen? Elms Legal?

http://elmslegal.co.uk

grumpyawldwifey

Haha yes, I think that's the one. I'm almost certain it is. Stress doesn't help an already rubbish memory !

Coupon-mad

They refused to provide their "commercially sensitive' contract stating that they'd provided it to the BPA or IPC who were happy with ir so that should suffice.

Not at a court hearing, it does not.

A lack of authority from a landowner means they have no 'standing to sue' and no 'legitimate interest' in pursuing such high sums when they are not the landowner, and have suffered no damages (Beavis case says so, effectively).

IMHO their case falls down if they can't show that the charge is not 'unconscionable' given the facts of the case and they have to show the:

- clear and prominent, simply worded (not crowded blue/yellow crap) signs, and hidden PDT machines

- agreed contract between the driver and themselves (by conduct, having seen clear signs and accepted a licence to park)

- legitimate interest in charging a hundred times any loss that a landowner could claim

- commercial justification and standing/authority

...that existed in the unique (dissimilar) Beavis case.

Those issues saved that case ONLY, from being struck out under Lord Dunedin's 4 tests for a penalty (the penalty rule). Other parking charge cases were held to be always subject to the penalty rule which remains 'engaged' in such cases, and that each case must be considered on the facts.

Try to knock down all of the above, and you will distinguish your case from Beavis.