Excel PCN NTK

poundofcarrots

Anybody??? Got to get this down to court, pronto!

Le_Kirk

poundofcarrots wrote: »

Anybody??? Got to get this down to court, pronto!

Excel Civil Enforcement Limited www.excelenforcement.co.uk
Excel Parking Services Limited www.excelparking.co.uk

These two were found on the BPA Members list: -

KeithP

Excel Parking Services Ltd are members of the BPA.

However, they are not members of the BPA's Approved Operators Scheme.

poundofcarrots

Thanks Keith. Does this mean that they should abide by the BPA's CoC or not?

KeithP

Not .

poundofcarrots

Happy to say 'Another One Bites the Dust'.

Was in court this morning in Middlesbrough after Darlington County Court roof collapsed last week and cases were moved there at the last minute. It was a bit of a shambles with proceedings starting two hours late. It also meant I was sat in a 'proper' court with the Judge sitting up high which made it all the more intimidating, particularly as I'd sat there a year previously as a member of the jury on a serious criminal case.

The Judge didn't have my bundle (even though it was hand-delivered to the Court) which made things a bit tricky in explaining the case. Excel's rep, a Mr Taylor introduced himself before the hearing and we sat in a side room where we went through a few details before he said he was duty bound to offer a settlement before we went in which I refused. He agreed that I had a strong case and admitted that he dealt with many many private parking charges which he found tiresome and mostly unjust.

When we finally went into court, Excel's rep went first and presented their case, of which he had only been handed on two days previously. It transpired during my spiel that he had not even been given my WS which certainly went in my favour, nor had he even been told that the two cases had been given a combined hearing. I think the Judge felt slightly sorry for him but not so much that I wasn't made to sweat it out a bit.

The rep centred mainly on the fact that, although it was acknowledged that a parking fee had been paid (although never acknowledge by Excel), it was the wrong VRM, which was a breach of the T&Cs. As I wasn't the driver and their rep acknowledged as much, this didn't really have any bearing on me as I wasn't there to even attempt to read them on their signs. The rep's main point therefore was, from the Excel WS, that they were holding me liable through the Law of Agency. In their WS and in previous communication, they had stated they weren't using POFA.

When it was my turn, I told the Judge that Excel had to use POFA and he asked me how I knew this and I told him it was through my reading and it was in my defence (Greenslade's words used etc.) but most importantly it was also in the Excel V Smith ruling which it appeared the Judge had not previously encountered. Having not been given my bundle, he could not read the case until I passed him my copy which he spent several minutes reading. As the Excel rep had not been given my WS or evidence, he didn't have a copy either, so the Judge then passed it to him referring him to the key paragraphs.

At this, their rep, who was decidedly less cheery than in his initial approach said that he couldn't really counter this ruling other than to say that as it was also in a County Court, it was not binding.

The Judge did not say whether or not he could rule on that point but it might be something the experts here can clarify on and for others' use in future.

In summarising, he said that because my wife had paid to park and that Excel V Smith over-ruled the Agency argument, it was case dismissed. He asked for a copy of the Smith case to be held on file too.

I then asked for costs, of which he again didn't have a copy. He asked how much I was seeking, and I explained £95 for loss of earnings, £6 for printing, then mileage and LiP for unreasonable behaviour. He asked how I knew it was £95 and I said it said on the Courts website (I made this up as wasn't sure). The Excel rep countered to say it was only £92. The Judge then heard (although seemed to be getting impatient by now) my argument for unreasonable behaviour costs and said that it was a 'high bar' to prove this and didn't feel that the Claimant had acted unreasonably and had a right to bring a claim.

He therefore awarded only £90 (out of my £671 claim!) and would not pay mileage as he said that the Claimant could not account for the fact that the case had moved 20 miles away at the last minute. In hindsight, I feel that this was wrong as that is what the Claimant risks when bringing these cases. In failing to award even the full amount for loss of earnings, this is of no deterrent to Excel and their ilk, but perhaps that's not the Judge's job. From what I gather from the Excel rep, he gets paid whether he wins or loses anyway so they lose out on his wages, the Court fee and my £90. That's good but not good enough so they won't continue churning out these claims.

I would like to than everybody that has helped me on these issues (particularly Coupon, Le Kirk, Keith P, Red X, Nosferatu, Umkomaas, Quentin) as I really couldn't have done it without the advice here, even though it does go quiet a lot and one has to ask repeatedly at the risk of annoying those giving help!

The Excel V Smith case really was the sucker punch and I just wonder how much effort Excel are going to start taking to make their PCNs POFA compliant. Given the utter shambles in the way in which they left their legal rep out to dry, who can tell?

For the record, this was concerning Feethams Leisure Car Park, Darlington.

Excel now has 14 days to pay up. Do they need to be reminded of this?

nosferatu1001

Shame not to get the full amount - did you bring proof of your loss> The £95 is a cap, and is in the CPRs.

poundofcarrots

I did indeed but he didn't ask to see any proof. In fact, he acknowledged that I earned more than he was awarding...

nosferatu1001

Then he has midirected himself
Once you hit the £95 you cant award less.

KeithP

At this, their rep, who was decidedly less cheery than in his initial approach said that he couldn't really counter this ruling other than to say that as it was also in a County Court, it was not binding.

It may not be binding, but as it was decided at appeal, the decision is persuasive.

Anyway, well done on winning.