Excel Parking fines

NeilCr

First, I am no expert!

But, that seems to me to be really long. I gave up half way through the second part having got lost in all the references.

The judge will want to see something easy to read and to pick out the salient points. I'd have thought you run the risk of eyes glazing over and making the judge grumpy. Not what you want..

Le_Kirk

You paragraph 20 seems to just stop, was there something else planned for there?
Change this: -

The signs throughout the development does not

to this: -

The signs throughout the development [strike]does[/strike] do not

Should this: -

Any mention of VCS it is too small to see and the average person would conclude the contract is with Excel

be this: -

Any mention of VCS [strike]it[/strike] is too small to see and the average person would conclude the contract is with Excel

Change this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

to this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant cites the cases quoted:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

This is to ensure that the court knows you are quoting from previous cases not issuing instructions/orders to the judge.

Money...MATTERS

NeilCr wrote: »

First, I am no expert!

But, that seems to me to be really long. I gave up half way through the second part having got lost in all the references.

The judge will want to see something easy to read and to pick out the salient points. I'd have thought you run the risk of eyes glazing over and making the judge grumpy. Not what you want..

Thank you NeilCr your point is very helpful I will be working to reduce this.

Money...MATTERS

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You paragraph 20 seems to just stop, was there something else planned for there?
Change this: -
to this: -
Should this: -
be this: -

Change this: -to this: -This is to ensure that the court knows you are quoting from previous cases not issuing instructions/orders to the judge.

Thank you, I am going to make quite a few changes to the statement.

Coupon-mad

This (below) is important and needs to be much higher up and you need to spell out why this is a problem for the Claimant (VCS) and look them up in the Companies House website and quote both their Ltd company numbers to show they are different legal entities:

9. All of the signs and machines in situ display information and logos stating the car park is managed and operated by Excel Parking Services.

There are defences & WS written already that cover this - you should be mentioning cases VCS have had struck out or discontinued due to Excel signs. Search the forum for the surname Zozulya and copy.

At #12 add in the new VCS one where THEY had a case kicked out too (quote the Judge at Caernarfon):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76252097#Comment_76252097

I hope you realise you should be attaching the actual judgment from DJ Grand plus the new Caernarfon judgment itself that I linked there, not just quoting them of course?

And you need in evidence, Excel v Smith (and say it is an APPEAL and so 'persuasive') and append the transcript for Excel v Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 too.

Delete the forum glitch after you quote that case:

8230;

Don't adduce ancient old ParkingEye v Sharma. It's kicked into touch by Beavis. No idea where you dredged it up from, in fact!

Money...MATTERS

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This (below) is important and needs to be much higher up and you need to spell out why this is a problem for the Claimant (VCS) and look them up in the Companies House website and quote both their Ltd company numbers to show they are different legal entities:


There are defences & WS written already that cover this - you should be mentioning cases VCS have had struck out or discontinued due to Excel signs. Search the forum for the surname Zozulya and copy.

At #12 add in the new VCS one where THEY had a case kicked out too (quote the Judge at Caernarfon):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76252097#Comment_76252097

I hope you realise you should be attaching the actual judgment from DJ Grand plus the new Caernarfon judgment itself that I linked there, not just quoting them of course?

And you need in evidence, Excel v Smith (and say it is an APPEAL and so 'persuasive') and append the transcript for Excel v Lamoureux, C3DP56Q5 too.

Delete the forum glitch after you quote that case:

Don't adduce ancient old ParkingEye v Sharma. It's kicked into touch by Beavis. No idea where you dredged it up from, in fact!

Thank you so much Coupon-mad I'll get on to it right now.

Money...MATTERS

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I hope you realise you should be attaching the actual judgment from DJ Grand plus the new Caernarfon judgment itself that I linked there, not just quoting them of course?

Upon looking at the DJ Grand judgement it has a date of 21/11/2018, my evidence has the 21st February 2019 which was copied from elsewhere on the forum, should I use the one on judgement?

Money...MATTERS

Morning,

I’m on way to print everything off, does the WS look good to go?

Thank you forum.

Coupon-mad

Money...MATTERS wrote: »

Upon looking at the DJ Grand judgement it has a date of 21/11/2018, my evidence has the 21st February 2019 which was copied from elsewhere on the forum, should I use the one on judgement?

Yes, both that and the Caernarfon one to show that, in 2018 AND now in 2019, Judges from as far apart as the Isle of Wight and Wales, agree that adding sums to the parking charge is not allowed, by virtue of the Beavis case, the POFA and the CPRs on proportionate & justified 'costs'.

Haven't seen a Judge up North realise that yet. C'mon Skipton* Judges, you know the score!




*I know some won't consider Skipton especially Northern, but to me, London is North!

Money...MATTERS

The Judge started off by stating that he didn't have a copy of the detailed POC so the Claimant's representative provided a copy. The Judge stated so you are only claiming £100 per ticket and the rep confirmed that to be true - on this basis I decided not to mention the abuse of process when it came to defending as i've not really got my head around it.

The Claimant started off with trying to discredit me - the permit that was submitted in evidence was the wrong one and the permit makes mention to use it in the zone being the Council's side of the fence.

The Claimant presented the claim drawing attention to the signs available at the site and the fact that 2 tickets were paid for so they were not sure what basis I had to claim that I was not aware of the car parks.

He then tried to discredit the signs in my WS and drew the Judge to a welcome sign about 20 feet in situ.

The Judge invited me to defend. I explained that the wrong permit was submitted in evidence however I did have the right one within my possession. The Judge accepted it without looking at it.

The Judge asked why I had paid for two tickets and then claimed that I was unaware that there were 2 car parks. I tried to explain that all of the tickets were relating to a 2 week period. When we appealed we appealed on the basis that we had a permit to park at the car park. The Judge advised that this presented a problem for him. The Claimant was asked whether he had details of the settled 2 tickets and the dates they were paid for - he advised that he didn't.

I advised that there was more than one person named to drive the car and I couldn't be sure who had driven the car at the time and this was drawn to the attention of the Claimant at the initial appeal. The Judge then asked whether I was the driver and I said no and I didn't know who was.

He asked for other points of defence so I mentioned that the Claimant could not hold me accountable as the Registered Keeper because they do not comply with POFA. I was asked to demonstrate how they do not comply and showed the requirement to get PCN made via ANPR to the Registered Keeper within 14 days. The Judge calculated 34 days between the contravention and the first of the 3 tickets being issued and stated that he could not understand why they were issued so late.

He asked the Claimant’s representative what explanation can be given for not relying on POFA as mentioned in their own evidence - the representative said that he couldn’t offer one.

The Claimant advised that they were relying on the law of agency and referred to the terms and conditions of their sign which said something along the lines of - if any driver or registered keeper found to be parked in contravention to the terms and conditions of the car park will be required to pay £100. The Judge advised however that it did not say that the registered keeper would incur the charges on behalf of the driver.

The Judge requested other points of defence.

I addressed the signs being from Excel and the fact that I had submitted in evidence that the Council have been inviting the Claimant to change the name of the car park or to put more signs at the entrance and have not received any response.

The Judge asked whether there were any other points of defence. I advised that that was it.

The Judge stated that he was ready to make judgement.

The Judge did not accept that I wasn’t aware of the two car parks because I had paid for 2 two tickets before and essentially I did not have a defence (I thought it was over with that) however as he did not have the dates of the two tickets or when they were paid for he could not say whether that was before or after receiving the 3 tickets relating to this case.

He accepted that there was more than one person named to drive the car and that it could not be established who drove the car and in such cases the Claimant would rely on POFA to hold the Keeper liable for the actions of the driver however the Claimant does not rely on it.

The Judge stated that it was likely to be an error in parking by the defendant otherwise why else would one buy a annual permit!

He also said that the Claimant could put more signs at the entrance and throughout with their own details.

He concluded that there were 2 main issues with the Claimants case:

1) all of the signs say Excel apart from the one tariff board that mentions the Claimant however all the signs say that Excel manage and control the car park and there is a big logo on the tariff board that is Excels and although the 9 signs advise the driver to refer to the terms and conditions the contract appears to be with Excel.

2) The Judge referred to my evidence and stated that what is required to hold the registered keeper liable in cases such as this where the identity of the driver could not be established is compliance to the Protection of Freedoms Act and the Claimant does not rely on it.

The case was dismissed in my favour and costs awarded for loss of earnings at £70 plus £8 travel :j.

The representative after we finished stated that he thought the case was bound to fail and the Claimant were just trying to pursue their luck:rotfl:.