Excel Parking CCBC Claim - Twice for the same instance

cparking

Hello,

In October last year, Excel Parking issued 2 'This is not a Parking Charge Notice' red tickets because they allege we parked without a valid ticket and then - after purchasing a ticket, that we over stayed it.

I've acknowledged service of both claims and I'm in the process of putting together a defence.

What happened:

The car park in question is immediately adjacent to a chain hotel which we were staying at. On arrival at around 1830 it was dark and there were no lit / obvious signs that parking was chargeable. We parked and went to check in. During checkin we asked if we had parked in the correct location, we were advised we had but it was pay and display.

We completed checkin and I walked back to the car to pay at around 1845. There was an attendant in the process of ticketing the car. We argued and he claimed the usual 'I've started so I have to finish'. After debating this, I wen't back to reception to complain and was advised that the hotel have nothing to do with the paid parking out front. It was late, there was nowhere else nearby to park so I went out and paid for parking for 24h at 1922.

The next day we were late to return to the car park by approx 10-15min. Again the same parking agent was ticketing the car, The time on his ticket was 1934, 12 minutes after the ticket expired.

So far Excel have failed to respond to my SAR request.

I have a few questions about the claims themselves. I was hoping someone could help?

Firstly, is it possible to have these consolidated into a single claim / defence, I'd like to avoid going through the whole thing twice?

Second, I only received an LBC for the 2nd claim. It states they intend to claim for £130 + £25 court fees. Which is a charge that includes a 'debt collection fee'.
The CCBC claim is for £185 (£160 + £25 court fees). This directly contradicts the 'Particulars of Claim' on the same form which states £130.
The original ticket was for £30 for early payment, or £70. It was then changed to £100 after I appealed. Are they within their rights to continue adding costs?

Finally the 'Particulars of Claim' is as follows (I've redacted identifying details):

"The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £130 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on [Date] at [Location] Pay & Display Car Park.
The CN relates to a [Car Model] under registration [VRN]. The terms of the CN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of Judgement or earlier payment."

From the above I don't follow on what grounds they are pursuing me (keeper or driver?), nor what exactly they believe my contravention to be. Can I get this detail from them?

Without the SAR is there any other way to see the evidence they plan to present?

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks,

MothballsWallet

Have you done the AOS? And what's the date on the claim form? (I ask this as KeithP can confirm the deadline date submitting your defence from that.)

With the SAR, they have 30 days to respond - if you get nothing back by that time, complain to their DPO, mention the ICO, and then put in a complaint about them to the ICO as well.

I think the £60 cost part is BS as these debt collectors and PPCs have a "no win no fee" deal between them, so that should be struck off.

Yes, you can put in your defence that they have submitted 2 separate claims in an attempt to waste court time and rack up their costs that they can charge and ask the court to consider them as one claim due to the abuses of process.

If I've missed anything, I'm sure others will let you know.

If this is a hotel, have you tried a complaint to them: they have the power to cancel as Excel are their agent, and therefore they are also liable for Excel's actions.

You could politely lay it on thick saying that getting these tickets while staying at this hotel (oh, btw, which one?) has soured you against staying with them again in the future so they're going to lose custom if they don't help you.

How are you getting on searching for recent defences on the forum for Excel Parking and either the same hotel or one owned by the same company?

That's a good place to go after reading bargepole's concise defence in the NEWBIES thread to get started on that process.

Coupon-mad

is it possible to have these consolidated into a single claim / defence, I'd like to avoid going through the whole thing twice?

I searched the forum for two claims consolidated and found this in less than a tenth of a second:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75622230#Comment_75622230

HTH

cparking

@Coupon-Mad - Thanks, I did have a search but didn't come across the thread you linked. Your response in thread : 'Two separate claim forms for two separate PCNs Excel' (can't link yet) is pretty comprehensive as well.

@Mothballs - I've lodged an AOS for both claims dated : 18th & 25th March. I was out of the country last week, hence lodging both claims this morning. I presume the 28 day countdown starts from the claim date not the AOS date.

I've already tried the hotel route, although the parking is immediately adjacent it's not associated with them at all.

I have bargepoles defence and a few others I think are relevant. Will hopefully get tome to draft something this evening.

Snakes_Belly

Was the Hotel a Travelodge?

KeithP

cparking wrote: »

I've lodged an AOS for both claims dated : 18th & 25th March. I was out of the country last week, hence lodging both claims this morning. I presume the 28 day countdown starts from the claim date not the AOS date.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th March and 25th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 23rd April 2019 and Monday 29th April 2019 respectively to file your Defences.

That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce perfect Defences, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, each Defence should be filed separately 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 a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put 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.

cparking

Managed to get a moment to put together a first draft of my defence. If anyone has a chance to look it over as see if I'm on the right track that would be appreciated:

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXXXXXX.

The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant at or around the same date, and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant.

Further, by the claimants own evidence, these claims relate to the same incident and would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a red/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

The Particulars of Claim make no reference to the grounds on which the Defendant is to be pursued. This indicates the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply assuming the defendant liable. The Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

The particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

The sparseness of the particulars, leave it unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The signage is un-lit and at the time of the alleged incident they were both un-noticable and unreadable. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

Additionally, the un-lit signage and direct entryway to an adjacent hotel is deliberately designed to create confusion round the terms of the alleged contract. Preventing a reasonable person from fully ascertaining the full terms within the 10min grace time allowed by the claimant.

The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £70. As detailed in paragraph XXXX the Claimant is pursuing 2 claims for the same alleged incident, totalling £340, including £120 in debt collection charges and other undetailed charges. No calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

The claimant has submitted 2 claims for the same incident with substantially differing costs: XXXXXXXX totalling £185 and XXXXXXXX totalling £155. It is therefore put to the court that these charges are arbitrary and are not fairly calculated.

In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Further, in submitting multiple claims fo the same incident, the claimant intended to drive up costs and waste the courts time. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

cparking

Also, I presume I need to tailor a defence to each claim? Or, given they refer tot the same incident, should I write one that covers both and submit twice?

Coupon-mad

Nice defence.

Do the same defence twice (change the claim number at the top in the headings) and email them separately to the CCBCAQ email address with a subject line:

URGENT DEFENCE RE CLAIM XXXXXXXX

Number all your paragraphs on your document and sign/date it.

I would just add/edit here:

The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be [STRIKE]parked[/STRIKE] stopped on the material date for a few minutes between photographs, in a marked bay at XXXXXXXX. In fact, the occupants of the car, which included the Defendant, were simply unloading their cases to check in at the Hotel and - in the absence of clear signage about Hotel guests - to ascertain the terms of parking, which often at Hotels these days simply requires the guest to provide their numberplate at reception to claim exemption. The Defendant was told that this was a pay & display car park and so went to read the signs and find a machine - and instead found an Excel employee already 'issuing a ticket' within minutes, acknowledging the proof of patronage of the Hotel but refusing to stop, even though in fact the 'red card' placed on the car was not a parking ticket at all and the charge could have been cancelled on the spot.

If the keeper Defendant was not the driver then say so and cite the POFA.

cparking

Thanks Folks,

Quick update. Went to Court last week and the claim was dismissed.

Was a fairly quick process, mostly thanks to Excel Parking's incompetence. The submitted two claims which the judge consolidated on the day and the Court admonished them for.

Their defence was also inconsistent. Despite claiming the car had been parked in the same place, they provided photos of two different car parks.

Ultimately their claim failed on their inability to demonstrate a contract had been formed. We didn't even touch on the PCN process or breach of POPLA.

Thanks again for all your help.

Redx

I think you mean POFA , not Popla

Well done

Another one bites the dust !!