Letter Before Claim, EXCEL

Coupon-mad

Did the Judge not consider the fairness of the consumer sign, and did he/she allow them £60 on to (which is in fact unrecoverable)?

Pringle114

No the only thing he went in my favour with was waiving the claimants representatives fee of £180. He even added on 2% interest for the claimant. Total owed is £211 to be paid within 14days. I'm not appealing it though, just gonna pay it this week and move on lol. Tbf he didn't seem to care at all that they refused on multiple occasions to provide records etc. I thought that may have been my strongest point as well lol.

Simply put his thought was, "you entered a contract and didnt display your ticket, thus breaching it"... And that was that lol. Didnt care to delve into the machine being faulty etc.

Sorry I cant remember the judges name I should've write it down. It was Durham CC though if thats any good.

RobinofLoxley

As DoaM said unfortunately you lost in the judge lottery in which 99 out of 100 would have dismissed the claim, you drew the incompetent one.
The fact that they refused to supply a log of the P & D machine transactions for that day failed to prove the machine was working.
As you said you had paid money into the machine and because they couldn't or wouldn't prove it was working correctly, on the balance of probabilities the judge should have found for you.

Coupon-mad

Total owed is £211

Did the sign mention the £60 that's included in the claim? They could not recover it. The Judge is wrong. The PCN was £100, not £160.

Durham Court = awful then!

Pringle114

Id have to check the sign again. They got every penny they wanted + 2% lol.

beamerguy

Pringle114 wrote: »

No the only thing he went in my favour with was waiving the claimants representatives fee of £180. He even added on 2% interest for the claimant. Total owed is £211

Sad, but the fact is that you both lost. On paper Excel won but in reality all this will have cost them a lot more than £211

Excel/VCS are on course for many spankings which they will lose big time

Coupon-mad

Pringle114 wrote: »

Id have to check the sign again. They got every penny they wanted + 2% lol.

So you didn't have time to mention the test of fairness...CRA 2015?

But a Judge has to consider it anyway, whether you raise it or not, and if the sixty quid was not specified as £60 on the sign then it was void for uncertainty, as per 6, 10 and 14 of the CRA 2015 grey list of unfair terms.

That's what I was trying to get you to read in time in CEC16's thread.

NO POSTER should be losing and having to pay the extra £60 now. It is demonstrably unlawful. ESPECIALLY if the sign was vague about it.

Pringle114

No I never mentioned it. Wish I had though...

Coupon-mad

Like I said, it is a duty of the court to consider it, even if you do not raise it.

Did the sign have the debt collection sum stated to be £60, in small print, or was it vague? (I am not asking about the £60 discount bribe).

Pringle114

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Like I said, it is a duty of the court to consider it, even if you do not raise it.

Did the sign have the debt collection sum stated to be £60, in small print, or was it vague? (I am not asking about the £60 discount bribe).

Tbh the text regarding the charges is difficult to fully read on the image supplied in my emails. Although it does definitely state 'PCN £100' at the end.