Win against Excel Parking for Smyth Street Wakefield in Court

Umkomaas

and joining us regulars in advising people.

Yes, please do. We can do with help from 'seasoned pros'. We have had a few new contributors join up in the fight of late. The more we have, no matter how minor the (knowledgeable) input, the further we push this stuff towards the precipice.

FlowerMac

Thank you .. will certainly remain as a contributor .. currently taking my treatment by Excel further as regards the law .. will let you know the outcome

bargepole

FlowerMac wrote: »

The lack of planning permission was most certainly not a 'red herring'. Wakefield Council have confirmed the site required planning permission. Furthermore, the lack of planning permission was one of the factors raised by the judge for Excel .. and I quote .. having a weak case. The more points raised in the defence the better.

I can't agree with the above, I'm afraid.

Whilst the Judge may well have considered that the lack of planning permission was a factor in the overall assessment of the PPC's case as being a weak one, I doubt whether he would have dismissed the claim on that point alone.

Whenever I've raised this point in court, the Judge's response has always been to ask if the local authority has taken enforcement action against the PPC. If they haven't (and they hardly ever do), then no breach of planning regulations is established, and that point falls away.

As for 'the more points raised in the defence the better', that simply doesn't fly. Every day on this forum I see Defences drafted by OPs of the 'kitchen sink' variety, spanning a ridiculously long number of paragraphs, many of them completely irrelevant.

There is a danger that the real winning points will become lost in the 'spray and pray' garbage, and many Judges will view the whole thing as a 'technical' defence cribbed from online sources, which they've seen many times before, and dismiss out of hand.

Very few Judges will bother to go through it all, and identify a point which may give them a reason to dismiss the claim.

A decent Defence will focus on two or three key points, starting with a factual description of what actually happened on the day to cause the PCN to be issued, and leading with the strongest argument as to why the claim should be dismissed.

FlowerMac

I take your points on board and think you're right about the spray and pray garbage .. but can only speak from my own experience. Their solicitor was lambasted for the whole duration of the hearing .. my defence was length and factual but pertinent with 20 hours of research into the law. I wasn't criticised for any of my points raised (except one minor point) so I think all of the defence was relevant. Guess it depends on each individual and how much effort they're prepared to research into this and present their case. Can't understand why no cases have been won on lack of planning though .. makes their signs illegal surely?

bargepole

FlowerMac wrote: »

... Can't understand why no cases have been won on lack of planning though .. makes their signs illegal surely?

Driving at 40mph in a 30 limit is illegal, but unless you are flashed by a camera, prosecuted and convicted, no crime has been proven to have been committed.

Snakes_Belly

@FlowerMac. In what way was your case weak, and what was your main defence against the weak points?
I am likely to go up against Excel so I am interested.

FlowerMac

No .. my case wasn't weak .. theirs was. Ask for a copy of the contract with the landowner. and check with the thread at the top of this forum .. if VCS are bringing the case the same point applies. Depends on your circumstances .. was the signage and lighting adequate. Check through the IPC Code of conduct for any breaches .. you can download a copy of their code of practice off the internet. Good luck

The_Deep

I agre with Bargepole, not everyone has the time, inclination, or ability to fight their case in court personally.

In my own case, it was a choice between attending court for a £1,000 claim, or go to Spain to wind up a £quarter million property deal.

elderlymike

FlowerMac wrote: »

A win in Court against Excel for their Smyth Street car park in Wakefield. They launched court proceedings via their 'sister company' VCS. However, this is a separate company as listed in Companies House. Excel have the contract with the landowner and are considered to be the Creditor. .. the company legally entitled to enforce parking charges. VCS had no contract with the landowner and were not the Creditor .. the judge dismissed their case on this basis. Also check for planning permission and advertising consent .. lack of advertising consent is illegal. ANPR cameras on poles require planning permission. If a backdated claim check google maps for evidence of insufficient lighting and signage. Know the difference about how the Beavis case relates to private parking and was based on commercial justification. This event occurred within a retail park with the offer of free parking for a limited period. As the driver overstayed their time it was deemed this could affect the footfall to the retail units (Commercial justification) .. therefore the parking charge was necessary to deter others from overstaying and to also manage the car park, This is entirely different to a private parking company who enforce parking charges with no retail units involved. Download a copy of the BPA or the IPC code of practice and check for any breaches of code of conduct. Do not ignore any communication from the Court .. failure to offer a defence to the court within the time specified results in a default judgement against you and the parking company automatically win.

Thank you FlowerMac,

I have had Court papers for an infringement going back over 2 years ago in the same car park.

Hoping for a similar win based on your argument.

Assuming that I do win, I look forward to posting here and helping others who are being intimidated by this dodgy company.