Excel PNC v Xircom

Xircom

No just tick the two boxes

Intention
I intend to defend all of this claim
I intend to contest jurisdiction

then my name and today's date.

Umkomaas

Xircom wrote: »

No just tick the two boxes

Intention
I intend to defend all of this claim
I intend to contest jurisdiction

then my name and today's date.

On what basis are you contesting jurisdiction?

Xircom

Just covering options as I have a place in Italy and will be staying over there for the summer/ don't think it will cause an issue as I come home regularly but my wife and grandchildren stay for the summer. If it going to cause an issue I'll ask the court to remove it.

Umkomaas

Xircom wrote: »

Just covering options as I have a place in Italy and will be staying over there for the summer/ don't think it will cause an issue as I come home regularly but my wife and grandchildren stay for the summer. If it going to cause an issue I'll ask the court to remove it.

Have you sent that in already? I think you have to pay a court fee to contest jurisdiction (£100? - check it out). Similarly, in order to change things already submitted, there is also a court fee (£100? - check it out too).

KeithP

Yes, it costs £100 to contest jurisdiction, but if that fee isn't paid then the claim continues - at least, that's my understanding.

OP, don't pay that fee will you? Let's keep things simple.

KeithP

OP, you didn't do the AoS in your own name, did you?

I think it should've been done in the name of the Defendant - the limited company.

Xircom

No my name will show up but the document AoS is as below

F6QxxxxQ 17/07/2019 F6QxxxxxQ-Xir..... Excel Parking Services Ltd (Company Name) Limited Acknowledgement of Service

I'll ring the court in the morning and explain, that "oh I ticked both boxes in error and can I have the I intend to contest court jurisdiction removed" as it was an error on my part. that should clear that one up.

Thanks for all you good advise

KeithP

I'm going to risk mentioning it just one more time...

The private parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts against you.

I believe you are unwise to continue to blatantly publish the Defendant's name, and now in your most recent post you have shown us the Claim Number.

Rant over.

Coupon-mad

Xircom wrote: »

(Company Name) Limited v Excel Parking Services Ltd
Dated 23rd July 2019
Claim No. XXXXXXXXX

Defence Statement
Company XXXX does not accept any liability to this claim for the following reasons.
1. According to Excel the car REG No.......was parked in the “The Square Shopping Centre Car Park” on 20th Nov 2018 @ 13:53 incorrectly, (Company name) has never disputed the fact that the registration is one of our vehicles. We asked Excel for proof and a copy of the original PNC, we also asked why it had taken over 60 days for a letter demanding payment, which was received on the 24th Jan 2019

2. (Company Name) telephoned Excel and were give short, sharp reply, “they (Excel) did not have to provide proof”

3. The car is sometimes used as a pool car for (Company Name) and on that day, it was booked out to a job in Chorlton by an AD-Hoc Contract Engineer, as our man was off sick and the Contractor’s car was in the garage. We have the engineers name but no forward address as he was hired via an agency, also my understanding is that I have no liability to say who was driving at the time of this alleged offence, the other issue is if the PNC had been on the car we would have acted quicker and the contract engineer would have settled it as it was by the time we received the first letter some 60 days later the engineer had left our company and moved on to new contracts.

4. We would also like to point out that the car was parked in a shopping centre care park, during a time “which looks like it may have been lunch time” this was not work related and as far as I can see not (Company Name) Limited responsibility.

5. Excel are using Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, which can be used to artificially transfer liability from driver to keeper in some situations. If this was such a case the hire car industry would also not be able to exist, as they would be liable for the actions of anyone using their cars. CPS vs AJH Films. DDJ Cowell found that CPS vs AJH Films allowed the transfer of liability from Driver to Registered Keeper as the driver was the keeper's agent. However, following the judgment Mr Smith expressed surprise as he had previously had an identical claim dismissed where CPS v AJH Films was found not to apply. DDJ Cowell acknowledged that had this been known to her before then the Judgment may well have been different. She gave permission to appeal both claims. On appeal it was found that CPS v AJH Films is only applicable in an employee/employer situation.

6. Is his not such a situation. Where I ‘am an employer but the driver was not employed by me but contracted by a 3rd party? Had the PNC been on the car and or the initial letter arrived whilst the contractor was with my company then it would have been settled immediately, had the person from Excel who we telephoned acted professional and supplied the initial PNC and letter we would have paid immediately and been able to claim our cost back from the contract engineer, as it is the time scale was to great, the engineer has moved on

Heading needs to be DEFENCE.

I am not liking the company saying 'we would have paid'. Sounds like an admission of liability.

You have nothing yet about landowner authority, or the (always) unclear signs, or at least a generic statement about Excel signs typically being overly wordy with the parking charge hidden in small print and not listed at all on the tariffs or at the machine (if this was a PDT machine car park).

Xircom

Good Points ; One question that I have is the sign and the CCJ make it clear that it a contractual agreement between the Landlord and Driver ; I don't see anywhere on the signs about Register Owner and I not had any terms and conditions from Excel stating the same.

KeithP ; Full understand and like always you advise is gladly accepted