Excel parking demands

Redx

Nicolelg_123 wrote: »

Looking at the link I’ll ignore letters unless I get a court letter which I will then reply to using the appeal templates on the newbies threat and keep photo evidence of the lack of signs etc to help with my case

NOPE


if and when you get court papers there are no appeals to be made, and no templates either

if and when you get court papers you will acknowledge ONLINE on the MCOL website, plus you will draft a bespoke DEFENCE based on your own case (no templates as there are none)

this will be done by reading the examples of defences approved for use by other people on here, and adapting one of them , even if its the CONCISE DEFENCE by member BARGEPOLE, the final draft will be signed , dated and saved as a pdf and emailed to the CCBC in Northampton

the photos etc will be used just before the court hearing, in several months time


my advice would be to drop a SAR email to the DPO at EXCEL and get all their data on you , to help with any future court claim defence

Nicolelg_123

So you recommend emailing for all data on myself but not acknowledging the fine or accepting liability

Redx

there was no "fine" , EXCEL cannot "fine" anyone at all in the U.K.

which moron told you that this charge was a "fine" ?

did it really use the 4 letter F word on your paperwork ? I think not

Excel issued an INVOICE (which they all issue for private land) and you can acknowledge receipt of the invoice if you so wish at a future date, but not in any SAR or at this moment in time

If you are contesting the charge, then you are effectively denying liability, which is your current stance on this. It is for the claimant to prove their case, to a judge , not for the defendant to roll over and play dead

Nicolelg_123

Received another letter today
Final demand
Despite sending you a demand for payment letter it is disappointing to note that the full payment outstanding remains outstanding.

We are giving you one final opportunity to settle your account before we commence county court proceedings.

If we successfully obtain a county court judgment against you this will affect your future creditworthiness and employability.

You have received this notice before the cop at intents to take you to court in relation to this debt

This looks like it will go to court now and they won’t give up so I’ll be looking into my next steps when I receive court papers

The_Deep

If we successfully obtain a county court judgment against you this will affect your future creditworthiness and employability.

This is a blatant lie, it will only do those nasty things it you lose and court and did not pay within the time limit.

Complain to your MP as it is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Nicolelg_123

I’ve checked the photos they’ve taken of my car and not a single photo shows any signs on walls for disabled only parking, there is nothing on the terms & conditions photo of the pay machine they added and no photos of any ground markings under my car.

It clearly shows a much larger space next to my car with ground paint of a wheelchair in its own box again with no disabled parking signs.

I’m going to fight this all the way and will not pay them the £160!

beamerguy

Nicolelg_123 wrote: »

If we successfully obtain a county court judgment against you this will affect your future creditworthiness and employability.

This statement is complete rubbish

They cannot successfully obtain a CCJ

If they won in court, the judge will tell you when to pay
14-28 days and once paid, the whole case is done and dusted,
no CCJ, no marks on your credit report.
IF YOU DID NOT PAY within the time stipulated by the court, then
and only then do you get a CCJ

Excel are knowingly misleading you to scare you and this is unlawful
and must be reported to your Trading Standards

MISLEADING AND AGGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721872/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf

Part 1: Liability for misleading and aggressive
practices
The 2008 Regulations make misleading actions unlawful
(see regulation 5). An action by a trader is misleading if it
contains false information or if it is likely to mislead
the average consumer in its overall presentation.

Consumer payments and “civil recovery”
The Regulations amend the definition of a “transactional decision”
to expressly cover demands for payment from a consumer in full
or partial settlement of the consumer’s liabilities or purported
liabilities to the trader (see reg 2(1A) of the 2008 Regulations).
This means that misleading and aggressive practices in respect of
such demands would now clearly lead to both criminal sanctions
(under the 2008 Regulations)

Show the letter to Trading Standards and this post if you wish,
EXCEL CANNOT BREAK THE LAW ...... EVEN THOUGH THEY DO.

There is no reason why you would not win anyway with the help of this forum

Nicolelg_123

That is brilliant thank you

beamerguy

Nicolelg_123 wrote: »

That is brilliant thank you

Companies like EXCEL think they rule the world but in reality, we do because there are
laws to protect the consumer against rogue traders and ....
EXCEL are certainly rogue traders

Coupon-mad

Nicolelg_123 wrote: »

I’ve checked the photos they’ve taken of my car and not a single photo shows any signs on walls for disabled only parking, there is nothing on the terms & conditions photo of the pay machine they added and no photos of any ground markings under my car.

It clearly shows a much larger space next to my car with ground paint of a wheelchair in its own box again with no disabled parking signs.

I’m going to fight this all the way and will not pay them the £160!

You have some great ammo there.

I would reply, pointing out the above and ask them to explain.