Excel parking charge notice

dufflers

Sorry I should have worded it better, I've meant should I have it with me as proof for the court day?
I've read several threads where it's been said that there's no reason to take all the debt collection letters etc as evidence?
I've kept hold of all correspondence from the very beginning

Coupon-mad

you can attach one to a WS if it is particuarly misleading, yes.

Le_Kirk

I think you'll find the advice is NOT to include the debt collection letters as evidence with your witness statement but DO take all the debt collection letters and other forms of harassment with you on the day of the hearing.

dufflers

I'll add it to my "I hate Excel Parking" collage and take it with me then

Thank you for clearing that up for me

dufflers

Hi all, it's been a while since i posted but wanted to update you all on my court case today

I won!!

I turned up 30 mins early and got into position in the waiting area with all my documents, the rep was already there and it was only my case being heard in the afternoon so he came straight over and introduced himself.
I had a quiet chat with him (against recommendations i know but he was really young and I knew what I should/shouldn't say/do). It didn't amount to anything and he seemed to be passing the time more than trying to achieve anything.

We got called in and the judge firstly stated that she had looked into the details of the claim beforehand and had read a previous case which had ruled de minimis (good start), she let the rep go ahead with their points on the WS, where they attacked my defence (3 digits wrong on the ringgo app to summarise the particulars).

He brought up the signage from their WS and how it said specifically that you need to enter your full reg details
He mentioned Vine v Waltham Forest
He stated they have landowner authority and mentioned the contract included in their particulars
And the added £60 being a contractual debt fee

I then got my chance to speak, so I showed DJ my actual photo of the sign (which omitted the part about entering your reg details in full) and compared it to the stock image in their WS, she liked that...
I argued that Vine V Waltham Forest was misquoted and floundered my way though it with plenty of encouragement from DJ, showed that the contract of authority and the land registry didn't match up, and finally tried my best to go through the £60 with all the information you guys helped put together and the numerous cases being dismissed.

DJ then took 10 mins to deliberate

She then summarised her findings. She thought that my signage photo evidence was credible (after having me swear an oath that it was), and that the claimant had not provided any evidence that the signage stated the Ts & Cs clearly. Namely that there was not enough grounds to charge someone who had paid, parked and appealed in good time.

She said that in a case where there has been 3 incorrect digits, not "random characters" entered, it was clearly an honest mistake and it was drawn to the claimant's attention. It was de minimus and they had suffered no loss. She couldn't understand why they continued to pursue me.

On the balance of probability the contract of authority would have been allowed, and had there been any doubt in the signage she would have considered the £60 add-on. I assume we would still be at court now arguing it - I recommend knowing your stuff when it comes to CRA and POFA for this if you aren't confident in your defence.. it seems more judges are looking at it recently so there is hope.

So finally we came to costs, I got my set aside fee back and a day of leave, she was very by the book and didn't want to entertain travel expense or any other small details, I ran through my list of unreasonable behaviour but it wasn't to be. She wanted clear evidence that the claimant had *failed pre action conduct* and none of my points seemed to satisfy that.

I shook hands with the rep and gave him my bank details to transfer the money owed.

Still, very happy!! It was exhilarating, I felt like Harvey Specter walking out of there in my suit and knowing that it's finally all over. When I get the letters back from the court I'll make them available for others to use.

I can't thank you all enough, regulars especially! Your help and advice throughout has kept me (and my very anxious wife) going. Special mentions for CM and LoC, you make the world a better place!

Coupon-mad

Woohoo, brilliant, thanks for the update! Well done!

ANOTHER EXCEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

I do tell people that explaining your case to a (usually very nice and canny) Judge in court is exhilarating and I only started lay repping in 2019. It is well worth fighting these unfair PCNs and a typo in the VRM is not a 'heinous crime' worthy of being hounded and sued for hundreds of pounds.

There is no other industry where companies would sue you for a typo.

Clearly the very idea of this term offends against the CRA in its own right, due to the doctrines of 'fairness' and 'open dealing' with the consumer being at the heart of the legislation, not the greedy trader who dreams up unfair terms and provides old keyboards that play a part in the typos!

we came to costs, I got my set aside fee back and a day of leave,

Nice. You drew a line under the whole thing and got those costs back!

beamerguy

Well done, well it's all happening in the house of Excel/VCS

The courts must have taken their fingerprints

dufflers

Yes, DJ did focus on CRA for a long time, but since the claimant WS hadn't mentioned it the rep didn't have an argument against it.. In hindsight it was very clearly going in my favour from early on, I wasn't about to count my chickens though

Le_Kirk

Well done, nice to read a positive court report.

Coupon-mad

but since the claimant WS hadn't mentioned it the rep didn't have an argument against it.

Tough on the rep then for not knowing the law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/71/enacted

You don't need to even mention it anywhere. Para 71 says so.

The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it.