Excel Parking Services - Flipped Ticket

jam1991

Thank you so much. Think I’ll submit a purchase for the title register and see what is contained within that.

Snakes_Belly

It will be interesting to see what a search reveals. If there is no lease listed under Excel's name they have submitted falsified records to the court as they did in the Ambler case.

If they have a lease but have not registered it then there are implications but lets see what the search reveals.

Jam, Johnersh is legally trained.

jam1991

Attempted to obtain the title register all day with multiple attempts:

Message from HM Land Registry
Sorry, there was an unexpected error when completing your order.

Snakes_Belly

“

Address:
land and buildings on the South side of Brunswick Street and the East side of St Cuthberts Way and 19 to 25 (odd numbers) and 29 Borough Road
Darlington

Tenure:
Freehold

The search that Robin of Loxley undertook shows freehold land not leasehold.

Snakes_Belly

I did a search on the Land Registry for Brunswick Street and found some entries for Land to the north of Brunswick Street. The Excel Car park is to the south of Brunswick Street.

Several posters have looked for this and been unable to find it. I am of a mind that there may not be a lease or they have not registered it. If it's not registered it creates all sorts of complications. It could be that they are just managing the car park.

You will be able to see you case listed on Courtserve later today when they update. You have to register for the site but it is free to just view.

Snakes_Belly

When you go to court tomorrow Excel's representative will probably ask for a "little chat" to narrow the issues. Think Private Pike and "tell them nothing". Many of these representatives do not prepare very well for the hearing so don't do their work for them by discussing the case with them beforehand. Be polite but play your cards close to your chest.

In the courtroom they will be faffing about with their notes or laptop whereby you will be able to look at the judge and maintain eye contact.

Judges are very random and don't always know much about parking law. When you look at the variety of cases on Courtserve that they hear much of it is repossessions.

jam1991

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

You will be able to see you case listed on Courtserve later today when they update. You have to register for the site but it is free to just view.

Registered and waiting for updates, which section do I need to be looking under please?

Snakes_Belly

Log and on the left hand side select Web Services, County Courts and then scroll down for your court. They may list as Daily Cause, Daily DJ/DDJ or by the name of the District Judge or Deputy District Judge.

Good luck for tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

You can try and introduce the argument that this should be excluded as to permit it would be to allow trial by ambush - you've been asking for this for XXX time and just a few days before final trial, the claimant serves:

1. Late witness evidence

2. Evidence that contradicts their own prior statement (which is signed and verified with a statement of truth)

3. A document which states a lease exists, but without actually stating any of the terms - the court should determine the entitlement on the basis of factual disclosure not a 1 page document from an individual not present at court to evidence the assertions

4. This document is said to have existed a matter of days since the lease was entered into. There is no basis for late disclosure. It is also not evidence that the lease was in place at the time of the event, since it reflects the position when it was signed, it may have now been terminated. It is for C to prove his case - he could serve both the lease and an up to date statement. He hasn't. Why?

5. The statement appears to refer to signs without actually referencing the content of the terms therein. It is hopelessly generic.

Don't forget too that AFAICT this jumped from £100 to £160 before excel outsourced to any debt collectors or solicitors so there is absolutely no basis to argue that the £60 is an actual cost.

Don't miss noting Johnersh's advice. He is a solicitor and this is well written.

Also (If this case was outsourced to DRP at some point) take a screenshot of the Debt Recovery Plus website that proves that they do PCNs without cost 'no recovery, no fee' to prove Johnersh's last point even more - there were never any recoverable or proportionate 'costs' that could be added for any letters because - not only were they NEVER incurred or paid, but - the parking charge already covers the typical generic parking business model of letters (see the Beavis case - the Supreme Court held as much).

The above costs argument is for damage limitation, in case you feel you are losing the case - you MUST reduce the costs and say the above and the ammo is there to support you (DRP website, and the Beavis case, and the POFA which says the max sum is the sum on the NTK, and the Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100, no more).

jam1991

Checked the DRP website and it quotes:

We offer a ‘no collection, no fee service’, therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees.

Our fees can often be added to the outstanding Parking Charge rather than deducted from the outstanding amount, so you don’t lose out.

I am under the impression the costs are:
£100 PCN.
£60 DRP cost (added on as per above quote).
£25 Court Fees.

Sorry I am not understanding this point.