Excel Parking Services County Court Claim - Help With Defence Please

Magpie2121

Most of the signs are quite high up but none of them mention whether a particular area is assigned to a particular client.

Magpie2121

Here's a view of the sign as I' enter the car park area in my car:

Magpie2121

Quentin wrote: »

Your defence used pofa

Are you defending as keeper?! If so the WS doesn't reflect this

I am defending as the driver.

Magpie2121

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You don't appear to have done this as there's nothing in your draft WS that looks anything like the versions your search will have found, where people have TORN APART VCS' case, sentence by sentence, in detail which is what we need to see from you:No-one needs to tell you about Kumari or Vine v Waltham Forest or any of their case law because your searching will find it's already been done for you to copy.

In addition to my WS, I have added the following. Is this sufficient or is there anything else in particular I should add?

As per the photos, the font on the signage is of varying sizes, with the terms and conditions applicable to this case in one of the smallest fonts and not able to be read unless standing directly in front of a sign as evidenced by the Claimant. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest a motorist should be able to read and agree to the terms and conditions set out on the signage from a moving vehicle or from the space in which the vehicle was parked and as I did not come into close proximity to the warning signs to read them in their entirety, I cannot be bound by their terms.

None of the signs stipulate that a particular area is designated to Engie permit holders or any other client, including TDR.

It is unclear to determine which area or parking bay(s) is designated to whom. Therefore, it is has to be assumed that any bay within the Quorum Business Park car park can be used. This assumption is backed up by the fact the permit does not indicate a specific bay.

The claimant also suggests that Engie were not authorised to permit the Defendant to park its vehicle in what they claim to be a TDR permit space, even though no sign states that particular area belongs to TDR.

In this case, the claimant should pursue its baseless claim with Engie themselves and not the Defendant as they issued the permit in its current state.

However, the Claimant still cannot deter from the fact that it’s impossible to determine which area permits Engie staff and which permits any other client.

The Claimant tries to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2016] AC 1172 for its reason not to suffer a loss by imposing agreed charges. As the Defendant did not park in a pay to park car park, the Claimant cannot claim to have suffered any loss of earnings at all.

I wish to point out a very recent case as below which was struck out due to an abuse of process.

Claim number: F0DP201T D
District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case that included an inflated amount.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "

It is my position that no contract was entered into with Excel Parking Services Ltd, no breach of contract occurred, there has been no loss to Excel Parking Services Ltd and that the Claimant has no standing or cause of action to litigate in this matter.

I invite the court to dismiss this claim in this entirety, and it award my costs of attendance at a hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Snakes_Belly

The £60.00 debt collection fees do not exist because the debt collectors work on a no collection, no fee basis. In the case that they cite the Claimant had a written contract and had paid money out to a managing agent for services to the property.

There is no mention of a permit applying to a specific undertaking in the signage. I think that the Claimant will be on difficult ground with that and you must push that point.

nosferatu1001

If you are defending as Driver, why does your defence mention POFA? POFA has NO relevance to you if the driver is known to them. It does not help you in any way shape or form.

Do you understand that your WS must *exhibit* the documents you wish to rely upon? So you would say

"The signage does not stipulate that this area of the car park is any different ot the other (see signs exhibited as "INITIALS/001 - 00X, photos of X signs at the car park" and in fact none of the signs mentions "TDR" at all...

This is the only way to incliude your evidence.

Magpie2121

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

If you are defending as Driver, why does your defence mention POFA? POFA has NO relevance to you if the driver is known to them. It does not help you in any way shape or form.

Do you understand that your WS must *exhibit* the documents you wish to rely upon? So you would say

"The signage does not stipulate that this area of the car park is any different ot the other (see signs exhibited as "INITIALS/001 - 00X, photos of X signs at the car park" and in fact none of the signs mentions "TDR" at all...

This is the only way to incliude your evidence.

Thank you so much for this. I didn't realise POFA doesn't apply if you're the driver up until now. I'll remove this from my WS.

I have taken photos and also made a couple of videos showing there are no signs to indicate a particular area belongs to TDR or any other client.

How would I go about including and sending these videos to the Claimant and to the courts? This is a major point of relevance that the courts and Claimant need to see.

I will reference the photos and videos properly in a full WS which I'll publish ASAP. First, I need to know if there's anything else at all or any other law examples I could use to help strengthen my case.

Magpie2121

Please can anyone provide some last gasp advice on what else I can include? The WS has to be submitted tomorrow so it reaches the courts and claimant.

Many thanks

beamerguy

Magpie2121 wrote: »

Please can anyone provide some last gasp advice on what else I can include? The WS has to be submitted tomorrow so it reaches the courts and claimant.

Many thanks

As said above ....
"Claim number: F0DP201T D
District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case that included an inflated amount.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover"

You must make sure that the judge sees this claim as abuse of process and if the case is struck out because of abuse of process, that is the case finished

Magpie2121

beamerguy wrote: »

As said above ....
"Claim number: F0DP201T D
District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

District Judge Taylor, dismissed a case that included an inflated amount.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover"

You must make sure that the judge sees this claim as abuse of process and if the case is struck out because of abuse of process, that is the case finished

I'm getting confused now because @nosferatu1001 has advised POFA has no relevance to my case as I've nominated myself as the driver?