Excel Parking - County Court Letter

Coupon-mad

It's not 'IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT' (unless that's where you live). It will - if there is a hearing at all - be heard at your local court, as is your right as a litigant on person. So you head a defence at this stage up:

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

And this is the wrong full company name of the acronym 'IPC' as they changed it last year:

Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice.

Don't bother with the Part 18 at all.

n4im

Thank you for you reply. I have omitted Part 18 and also paragraph 6 from the defence which refers to Part 18.

I have also changed the name of IPC to International Parking Committee.
Thank you to everyone for your help. I intend to submit tomorrow, wish me luck!

Statement of Defence


20/01/2018

1. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant as a valid ticket was purchased but an incorrect number plate was entered at the ticket machine. A new contract was formed by acceptance of the parking ticket at the time (with wrong vehicle registration plate).
The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success as a valid ticket was purchased and subsequently evidence of purchase was sent to the claimant to prove the claimant didn’t lose out.

2. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 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.
a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
b) 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 locus standi to bring this case.

3. 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 Landholder. 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.

4. 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 International Parking Community (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.


5. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.


7. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
c) The Claimant is not the Landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.

8. (a)The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representatives costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

(b)The amount claimed is £100 + £60 Contractual costs + £9.12 interest + £25 Court Fee + £50 Legal representative costs, a total of £244.12. There were no visible signs to mention the £60 contractual costs on above the amount claimed. Automated templates which are sent out regularly in order to hassle individuals without understanding situations on a case by case basis. The £169.12 claimed is not representative of the loss to Excel as the hourly parking cost was £0.50 and this was paid.

9. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the Landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

10. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, 20/01/2018 (date I intend to send) are true."


Signed


[my name]

n4im

Should I ring excel and tell them again about the ticket ive purchased with wrong number plate and hope they write it off or shall I take the county court option

Umkomaas

I have also changed the name of IPC to International Parking Committee.

Try ‘Community’.

n4im wrote: »

Should I ring excel and tell them again about the ticket ive purchased with wrong number plate and hope they write it off or shall I take the county court option

1. Never phone a PPC (or debt collector), you’ll get no assistance from them, plus, there is no record of a phone call. Everything in writing - this is now a legal case.

2. They will never write off a ‘wrong number’ ticket, but it might help a court case if you put it in writing to Excel. There might be a parallel with the recent ‘fluttering ticket’ cases that bargepole posted about yesterday.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5779740

3. You have little choice about whether to ‘take the court option’ or not. Excel are calling the shots. The only way you can avoid the court action is if you pay Excel, or you put together a powerful defence (and associated paperwork) causing Excel to ‘blink first’ and withdraw. If you don’t defend, you lose.

n4im

Just preparing my defence.

As I bought a parking ticket but entered the wrong car registration number, I have sent copy of the ticket to excel and they still continued to chase me although I explained that other car was nowhere near the car park.

I want to ask Excel to provide proof that the car whos number is written on the ticket was in the car park. Do I do this in my defence letter or in court?

Coupon-mad

You will hopefully have been reading other threads on the forum and watched the video/seen the transcript of the Parliamentary Debate on Friday, about private parking scams:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02a.1149.0&p=11026


Sir Greg Knight, MP for East Yorkshire, who brought the current Bill to the House, said:

''...it is important that those parking on private land who receive a private parking notice are treated fairly and consistently. Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain.

I will share an example with the House shortly of a similar case that I regard as outrageous.

Today, we have the opportunity to tackle this issue. I know that the worst abuses feature in the emails and postbags of all Members of Parliament. Not only my constituents in East Yorkshire but motorists right across the country are angry and calling for action.

...a pensioner mis-keyed her number plate into an automatic machine when paying for her parking, getting one digit wrong. On returning to her car, she discovered that the innocent mistake had resulted in a ticket. On appeal, she was able to point out that it was an honest mistake and, indeed, that no other car on the DVLA database had that registration number, but the parking company still demanded payment.''

You should also say that there was a BBC Watchdog programme a few years ago about Excel Parking pursuing a victim driver for miskeying a number plate, and Excel went on public record to the BBC, their spokesperson stating that they 'understand' that there might be human error in typing in a VRN and that they have 'robust checks' in place, to ensure that fines are not issued unfairly...

Clearly in this case, to pursue the charge is disproportionate, unfair and not saved by the Beavis case at all, because the car was not taking up a valuable space the driver was not entitled to use, and the payment was made in full.

I want to ask Excel to provide proof that the car whose number is written on the ticket was in the car park. Do I do this in my defence letter or in court?

In your defence, do what others have done this weekend, in the threads we hope you have been reading, and mention the Parliamentary debate and state that this is an example of rogue ticketing which the will of Parliament currently seeks to stamp out, due to operators being out of control.

You must mention everything in your defence that you intend to rely upon, so state that Excel were informed what had happened and would have been able to check that the other car was not in the car park, and cancel the charge straight away, on the basis that the payment was made and that human error cannot lead to £100 penalty, because that causes an imbalance against a consumer, is a case of unfairness, and this breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

n4im

I have been keeping up with the recent story about private companies being unable to look up on DVLA database to fine drivers. Your reply is excellent and provides a depth of information and direction. I have until later this week to finalise and submit the defence.

I was unaware of the parliamentary debate so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will thoroughly go through the various posts and make notes and adopt my response accordingly.

I whole heartedly thank you for your help and kindness. Its good to know good people still exist, in sheer volumes

Lamilad

I want to ask Excel to provide proof that the car whos number is written on the ticket was in the car park. Do I do this in my defence letter or in court?

No, because this won't be in dispute. Excel will say that you haven't complied with the T&Cs.

Just preparing my defence

is the defence you've posted in #13 what you plan to send? If so you need to add some paras at the beginning attacking the PoC. Read some recent CEL defences and the Johnersh defence in the newbies thread

n4im

Lamilad wrote: »

is the defence you've posted in #13 what you plan to send? If so you need to add some paras at the beginning attacking the PoC. Read some recent CEL defences and the Johnersh defence in the newbies thread

I have included a paragraph regarding the POC which is in paragraph 9 above.

I received the Claim form and within the claim form there is a Defendant Particulars of Claim so assumed that is it and some of the POC backdating arguments in other threads don't stand in this case. I have since realised that I havent requested a full POC but have stupidly acknowledged the court service.

Do you think requesting a Full POC avenue is now closed? My deadline to submit defence is this Friday. In which case can I used Johnersys POC paragraphs (without the full poc);

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

Coupon-mad

I received the Claim form and within the claim form there is a Defendant Particulars of Claim... Do you think requesting a Full POC avenue is now closed?

Well yes they have provided POC of sorts. But you can mention the sparse POC in your defence, as per Johnersh's version.

And include some stuff from the Parliamentary debate to open the Judge's eyes a bit.