Excel Parking Services- Appeal refused

Snakes_Belly

I should have parked elsewhere
I should have made alternative payment (machine out of use/ had flip phone????)
I should have called the helpline (kept ringing???)

I shall be writing up details of my case in the next few days. Those arguments did not hold in my case.

I cited Jolley V Carmel Ltd 2000 and the judge seemed to agree with this. It's a good case for faulty machines.

Spencerdog123

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th May, you have until Wednesday 12th June to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 26th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Thank you for your very helpful reply,

This link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Doesnt seem to load up, sit cannot be reached....

I am on holiday towards the end of the month so I will need to get my defense submitted quite a bit earlier.

Regarding the GOV gateway portal that you have to log on to, to reply to the court letter I received. Is there a particular response i need to make on there? or will that email to that email address you stated be okay?

Thank You again

Spencerdog123

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

[/B]
I shall be writing up details of my case in the next few days. Those arguments did not hold in my case.

I cited Jolley V Carmel Ltd 2000 and the judge seemed to agree with this. It's a good case for faulty machines.

This here: In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms??

Thank you

KeithP

Spencerdog123 wrote: »

Thank you for your very helpful reply,

This link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Doesnt seem to load up, sit cannot be reached....

I am on holiday towards the end of the month so I will need to get my defense submitted quite a bit earlier.

Regarding the GOV gateway portal that you have to log on to, to reply to the court letter I received. Is there a particular response i need to make on there? or will that email to that email address you stated be okay?

Thank You again

That dropbox link does work - just checked it again.
Maybe something your end - work computer not allowing dropbox maybe?

That dropbox link will answer your other questions too.

Snakes_Belly

I have posted on your thread rather than reply to your recent PM. It is really better to let the regulars see the posts and as I have explained I am not legally trained. There are very experienced people on the forum who will look at your Defence and Witness Statement.

I have posted details of my case on my thread. I did lose but as you will see it was a 'technical' loss. You may find some of the points that the judge made quite useful.

Your case appears stronger than mine. You have photographic evidence which I did not. You tried to ring Excel but could not get through (no surprise there). I did not have a phone.

There is nothing in the contract that says you must not enter the car park unless you have a smart phone

I think that your case is as good if not better than many on here that have won. That said a word of caution is that judges can be very random in their judgments and it is a lottery.

You have got now to the stage where a claim has been issued via the court. You may as well see it through. It's a very useful experience.

Spencerdog123

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I have posted on your thread rather than reply to your recent PM. It is really better to let the regulars see the posts and as I have explained I am not legally trained. There are very experienced people on the forum who will look at your Defence and Witness Statement.

I have posted details of my case on my thread. I did lose but as you will see it was a 'technical' loss. You may find some of the points that the judge made quite useful.

Your case appears stronger than mine. You have photographic evidence which I did not. You tried to ring Excel but could not get through (no surprise there). I did not have a phone.

There is nothing in the contract that says you must not enter the car park unless you have a smart phone

I think that your case is as good if not better than many on here that have won. That said a word of caution is that judges can be very random in their judgments and it is a lottery.

You have got now to the stage where a claim has been issued via the court. You may as well see it through. It's a very useful experience.

Thank you so much for your personal response.
Even though its a loss, you wouldn't really class it as one.

Driven me to go forward with this, looking forward to posting my outcome too,
just need to get a good defense together

Kind regards

Snakes_Belly

There are two cases on my thread which you may find useful. Link Parking V Mr N. relates to a case where the machine was not working. The PPC said Mr N should move the car. Judge said not. Unfortunately there is not an available transcript of this online.

The other decision is a POPLA decision. Prendi V Camden Council. Neither of these cases set a precedent however details are online for the Prendi case and as it was adjudicated by Henry Greenslade it may carry some influence. Again a failed ticket machine and HG's remarks may be worth quoting.

Umkomaas

The other decision is a POPLA decision. Prendi V Camden Council.

It wasn't POPLA, more likely PATAS (council cases wouldn't be adjudicated by POPLA). Mr Greenslade was employed by PATAS before eventually taking charge of POPLA, during the time London Councils [STRIKE]were screwed into underwriting[/STRIKE] operated the service.

Snakes_Belly

@Umkomaas, getting a bit confused as HG was/is head adjudicator at POPLA but of course its against a council. . Does seem quite well respected.

Coupon-mad

Yes Mr Greenslade can be described by a Defendant, as a parking law expert barrister and erstwhile PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator who thoroughly understands the law on private and public land. It's a good one to quote because if he says a person didn't have to move the car when a council machine was broken, then certainly a driver is not expected to do so when invited to park on private land.

If they were not allowing anyone to park then they should have shut the gate or put a sign up warning people specifically about their 'rules' when the machines were broken and telling people 'parking today will cost each driver £100'.