Excel Parking Services - Flipped Ticket

Coupon-mad

You are not understanding that DRP did not collect the money successfully, and thus there was never a £60 fee paid to DRP or due to them later for any service...is this not obvious?

That's what 'no collection, no fee' means.

jam1991

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You are not understanding that DRP did not collect the money successfully, and thus there was never a £60 fee paid to DRP or due to them later for any service...is this not obvious?

That's what 'no collection, no fee' means.

Sorry I'm a little stressed and missing obvious points as you say. That makes much more sense now. Thank you for all your help since this thread first went up.

Clairns

Yes good luck for tomorrow- and I echo the view that don't have a conversation with their representative before the court case- you will be helping their cause more than they will ever help you. It is likely that their representative is not an expert in parking cases either- the one in my case had only ever dealt with two parking cases before............

Politely decline their offer of a 'little chat' and say everything you would like to say will be done so in front of the judge.

Let us know how you get on.....

jam1991

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

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.

Still not updated listings for tomorrow, is it usually later than this?

jam1991

Lists updated now, change of Judge from what was listed on allocation paperwork. Not sure if that's good or bad thing...

Snakes_Belly

jam1991 wrote: »

Still not updated listings for tomorrow, is it usually later than this?

It can be. I would think by 7pm that it should be updated.

Don't panic the judges are gentler with litigants in person.The representatives get a hard time. I almost felt sorry for the one that represented Excel in my hearing. Well almost.

They witter on about Beavis and it does not cut with some judges.

KeithP

Have you seen this video?...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

jam1991

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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).

Back tracking over the letters received and only 'DEMAND FOR PAYMENT' letter which first listed the outstanding balance as £160 (up from £100) quoted "Your account has now been passed to our Debt Management Team for recovery".

I cannot see any reference to DRP. Does this mean I cannot use the above point as ammo?

Snakes_Belly

Which judge you get is a bit of a lottery. I would not worry about that too much. They are all human at the end of the day. You have a strong case. You have paid which is more than I had. So stay strong and go for it.

Fruitcake

jam1991 wrote: »

Update: frustration this evening whereby following submitting my witness statement, the claimant has sent the following regarding the leaseholder witness statement not being valid during the time of the PCN being issued.

I feel like they have just scrambled and thrown together the below with a date extension of 09/10/2023.
Accompanying letter just says admin error and apologies to the court.

This was one of the main points to bring up on hearing date, and feel some ammunition has now been lost. Any advice or response would be greatly appreciated.

Hearing date is next Tuesday 3rd September, so also feel this is very late by the claimant.

In addition to the late arrival of "evidence" I suggest you query why,

The identity of the landowner is not mentioned.
A lease is referred to but has never been provided.
Neither the signature nor the "printed" name are legible.


You need to ask to see a copy of the lease with the landowner's name on it as you believe that it does not exist.

Good luck for tomorrow.