We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Claim Form (County Court Business Centre) - Excel Parking
Options
Comments
-
I took the relevant parts fromA 2018 defence re VCS and a 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' which they then call a parking charge later:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74816302#Comment_74816302PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »That linked defence in post #22 there has eight points and is far more concise.
I took the bulk of this defence as it seemed to fit my circumstances more closely, and added in the other parts
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5659621/sip-gladstones-draft-defence-seeking-feedback
Is it worth brevity?0 -
Yes be concise and don't use two year old defences! I knew I'd seen it before - horribly wordy and it will likely annoy the Judge.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
EXCEL PARKING LTD (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________- The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
- The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the location alleged (an unmarked car park on land which is scheduled for future development), and had a valid ticket covering the period of parking required.
- The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the Registered Keeper and/or the Driver of the vehicle(s), and does not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description. Based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
- A contract was formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2016;
- There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge for failure to comply with the Terms and Conditions, which in this case appears to be a failure to display a valid ticket;
- That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site;
- That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums;
- The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
- A contract was formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2016;
- Further, the Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass or as contractual breach.
- These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, 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.
- It is denied that:
- A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of ''no ticket displayed'' occurred or can have occurred when using the “pay by phone” option via the RingGo app, the failure of which was not communicated to me nor was it within the Defendant’s control.
- That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering.
- The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
- The RingGo app, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', complied with the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, Section 16.
- A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of ''no ticket displayed'' occurred or can have occurred when using the “pay by phone” option via the RingGo app, the failure of which was not communicated to me nor was it within the Defendant’s control.
- The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.
- Payment for parking was made via telephone using a cashless system provided by the RingGo app, which makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display;
- The payment channel did not indicate any failure to make payment and responded as if payment had been made. As such the Defendant believed the necessary payment had been made;
- The failure of the payment service to process payment and/or notify the Claimant of such payment is not responsibility of the Defendant.
- Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention occurred. Further, the Defendant submits that no losses have been incurred by the Claimant, as payment for the parking period has been made and can be evidenced.
- Payment for parking was made via telephone using a cashless system provided by the RingGo app, which makes no provision for the printing of a ticket to display;
- 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 yellow/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. It is further put to the Court that this approach is not supported by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA2012), and as the provisions of Schedule 4 have not been met by this approach, there is no liability in law attached to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
- At best, parking without authorisation via means of payment could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. Such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
- The Claimant has inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant as, at no time has any explanation been provided as to how the sum has been calculated. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery, which POFA2012 Schedule 4 Section 4(5) specifically disallows.
- The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice.
- The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy either Lord Denning’s "Red Hand Rule” or the test set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
- Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
- The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy either Lord Denning’s "Red Hand Rule” or the test set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
- The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. 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.
- The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. Further, no loss is suffered in this instance where payment for the period of parking has been made;
- It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can manage the site following the procedure set out in POFA2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 8;
- It is suggested that placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then providing the Registered Keeper with a postal NtK outside the timeline set out in POFA2012, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
- The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. Further, no loss is suffered in this instance where payment for the period of parking has been made;
- It is a matter of public record that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). The IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. These findings indicate a conflict of interest.
- The Claimant is known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. As examples, the Defendant invites the Court to consider, amongst many others, the following:
- Excel v Ms C [C8DP36F0] - the Defendant purchased and displayed a ticket, but a fault on the ticket machine caused the ticket to be incorrectly printed. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
- Excel v Mr W. [C7DP8T7D] - The Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper of a vehicle despite making no attempt to comply with, and clearly stating that they do not rely on, the provisions in The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
- Excel v Mrs. E [C8DP79CC] - the Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper in a pre-POFA event, whereby liability was attempted via Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH even after a previous case (Excel v Lamoreux) indicated this approach was unlikely to be valid. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
- Excel v Mr B [C9DP35CY] - The Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper for the Driver “leaving the site” when the identity of the Driver had not been confirmed at the time. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant.
- Excel v Ms C [C8DP36F0] - the Defendant purchased and displayed a ticket, but a fault on the ticket machine caused the ticket to be incorrectly printed. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
- In summary, The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. 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
Date0 - The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
-
It is a matter of public record that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). The IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. These findings indicate a conflict of interest.
The Claimant is known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. As examples, the Defendant invites the Court to consider, amongst many others, the following:
Excel v Ms C [C8DP36F0] - the Defendant purchased and displayed a ticket, but a fault on the ticket machine caused the ticket to be incorrectly printed. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
Excel v Mr W. [C7DP8T7D] - The Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper of a vehicle despite making no attempt to comply with, and clearly stating that they do not rely on, the provisions in The Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
Excel v Mrs. E [C8DP79CC] - the Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper in a pre-POFA event, whereby liability was attempted via Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH even after a previous case (Excel v Lamoreux) indicated this approach was unlikely to be valid. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant;
Excel v Mr B [C9DP35CY] - The Claimant brought a case against the Registered Keeper for the Driver “leaving the site” when the identity of the Driver had not been confirmed at the time. The case was dismissed and costs were awarded to the Defendant.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Cheers for the feedback.
I debated taking out the IPC/Gladstones bit and in the end settled on just trimming it back a bit. Having now had a think, I think I agree and will remove.
As for the other cases, i'm attempting to demonstrate that Excel as an organisation just chuck cases out hoping to either scare people into paying up or that they get flustered and don't defend thus get a default judgement, and that almost every case that gets defended gets shown to be without cause. The first two seem to be relevant to the situation here semi-directly, with the last two showing the general "chuck a case out" approach. The details were summarised from Parking Prankster.0 -
Not that we see every case result here, but none of the court reports I’ve read here (from memory) has seen a Judge jumping on PPCs because of their ‘record’, nor having their judgment influenced by it. And there have been numerous ranty defences submitted.
The Judges have focused on the specific cases in front of them and whether that individual claim is valid or not. That’s about it. They are not PPC ‘slayers’ - as much as we might all hope!Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
A claim was issued against you on 25/03/2019
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 29/03/2019 at 10:21:52
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 29/03/2019 at 12:01:53
I don't have the form itself immediately to hand, but as my initial post, i have already gone through the acknowledgment as described in the NEWBIES thread.0 -
I don't have the form itself immediately to hand, but as my initial post, i have already gone through the acknowledgment as described in the NEWBIES thread.
irrelevant , KeithP cannot give you all the information you need UNTIL you post the DATE OF ISSUE
if you dont want his help with all of those details , say so, otherwise do as he asked and post it asap0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards