County court claim form from excel parking services

Caspar13

Okay, so here is my amended witness statement. I will take onboard around photos/evidence and save this separately and attach and annotate accordingly. Hoping I’ve found the correct thread that coupon mad was referring to. Thanks for your help!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1. I am the defendant in this case and the facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before.

2. I parked at the xxxxxx Street Car Park on xxxx-2018 whereby I paid for a pay and display ticket at 17.56.

3. At 17.56 I paid £2.50, as seen in image 1.

4. When I returned to my vehicle there was an envelope attached to the windscreen. In the envelope was a black and red piece of card that stated on it that “THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” on the front, as seen in image 2. On the back it had a serial number, the date and information stating that “A parking charge notice may be issued to the registered keeper through the post” as seen in image 3. At first glance I thought this was fraudulent as wasn’t like any parking fine/notice that I had ever seen before. Due to this I ignored the card.

5.The confusion and ambiguity of the ticket was bad enough but the lack of any proof that the person who issued it even once checked the time against the issuing ticket machine (given that there is no single 'system' or clock here) meant I considered the matter a scam and that, on the balance of probabilities and based on the lack of synchronisation of timing evidence, there was no contravention shown here at all.

6.I wish to cross examine the witness for evidence that the time hand written on the “not a parking charge” was synchronised with the ticket machine.

7.It is my understanding that if this was a Council car park, CEOs are required to synchronise their watches with each machine as they arrive on site, and adjudicators routinely find against Councils if they are unable to show this occurred. In the interests of fairness, transparency and open dealing with consumers, as required in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 I expect a similar level of proof from an AOS member private parking firm if they are to rely on this argument at a court hearing. This is the Claimant's claim to prove.

8.I wish to ask why the DVLA has banned the use of these 'not a parking charge' fake tickets now, as shown in other VCS cases where they have admitted they have had to stop. VCS being a sister company of this Claimant, both owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith and I would like to ask Excel's Director in person to explain these two points, at the hearing.

9.Based on the time on the card, 20.07, I also assumed that as per the British parking association and the International parking community code of pracitce that I had paid for the correct amount of time in the carpark. My ticket expired at 19.56 and the card was allegedly attached to my car at 20.07. This would have only allowed me 11 minutes grace period to read all of the relevant signs upon paying and also after my visit exiting the carpark. Assuming that there is a grace period of 10 minutes to read all signs and 10 minutes to exit the carpark I was still within what I deemed a reasonable time to be leaving the carpark.

10. I did not receive a notice to keeper in the post or any further follow up so assumed my initial suspicion around the black and white card possibly being fraudulent was accurate.

11. I subsequently moved home due to the breakdown of my mother and step-fathers marriage and was no longer living at XXXXXXXX where the car was registered at the time the card was issued.

12. By chance/luck my half brother passed on a letter to me which was dated the 05/04/2019 from the county court business centre stating that I owed £160. Had I received any correspondence prior to this I would have dealt with it and tried to appeal the charge.I dealt with this as soon as I was in possession of the letter and followed the relevant processes.

13. Following on from this I immediately emailed Excel parking to ensure that they had the correct address for me for any future correspondence and also to make them aware that I was no longer registered keeper of the vehicle. I requested an SAR of the following -
- All photos taken.
- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- a PDT machine record from that day, of payments made.
- all data held, all evidence they you are relying on, and a full copy of the parking charge notice and also the notice to keeper.
- and a list of all Parking charge notices you consider are outstanding against me.!

14. following on from my SAR request of the above I only received the photos taken of my car and a copy of notice to keeper and final reminder notice to keeper. I was not provided with the PDT machine record from the day or a list of parking charge notices considered outstanding against me. I was told via email that they were awaiting documentation from the debt recovery before they could complete the SAR which was then sent to me on the 30/05/19. See attached PDF. In this PDF there is no correspondence from any debt recovery companies and therefore I can only assume that these were not sent in the first place otherwise Excel would have included them in their response to my SAR.

15. I would like to point out that as this car park does not offer a free parking period the Parking Eye v Beavis case does not apply.

16.It is my intention to challenge this claim for payment under the following grounds and in no particular order

(I) Grace Periods – I allegedly overstayed 11 mins. I returned to the car, I do not believe this was more than 10 mins past the expiry of the ticket. However, the red card PCN saying 'this is not a PCN' confused me so much, that I didn't think to actually start comparing timings to protect myself from an unexpected later court claim. The industry standard British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Conduct states

“15. Grace Periods
* 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. 

* 15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.”

(II) Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

17.CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

18.Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.

19.The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

20.In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

21.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

22.Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

“
at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''
”
23.Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, I aver that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

24.According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

25.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

26.Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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...''

27.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

28.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

29.There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. I am of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

30.The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.


31.I believe the facts stated in this witness statement to be true.

beamerguy

RE the £60 fake claim.

You should be asking the court on what authority do EXCEL have to circumvent the law, POFA2012 and the courts own double recovery rules

Le_Kirk

6. I wish to cross examine the witness for evidence that the time hand written on the “not a parking charge” was synchronised with the ticket machine.

Which witness, I think you need to say either the person who compiled and signed the witness statement or the person wrote out the "This is not...." or a director of the company.

Caspar13

Thanks both! I have added in the suggested and made amendments to the suggested. I am now compiling a list of my exhibits separately and will get this sent off.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1. I am the defendant in this case and the facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the county court before.

2. I parked at the xxxxxx Street Car Park on xxxx-2018 whereby I paid for a pay and display ticket at 17.56.

3. At 17.56 I paid £2.50, as seen in exhibit 1, image of ticket from the machine.

4. When I returned to my vehicle there was an envelope attached to the windscreen. In the envelope was a black and red piece of card that stated on it that “THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” on the front, as seen in exhibit 2, photo of the front of the “not a parking charge”notice. On the back it had a serial number, the date and information stating that “A parking charge notice may be issued to the registered keeper through the post” as seen in exhibit 3, photo of the back of the “not a parking charge” notice. At first glance I thought this was fraudulent as wasn’t like any parking fine/notice that I had ever seen before. Due to this I ignored the card.

5.The confusion and ambiguity of the ticket was bad enough but the lack of any proof that the person who issued it even once checked the time against the issuing ticket machine (given that there is no single 'system' or clock here) meant I considered the matter a scam and that, on the balance of probabilities and based on the lack of synchronisation of timing evidence, there was no contravention shown here at all.

6.I wish to cross examine the person who wrote the “not a parking charge” note for evidence that the time hand written on the “not a parking charge” was synchronised with the ticket machine.

7.It is my understanding that if this was a Council car park, CEOs are required to synchronise their watches with each machine as they arrive on site, and adjudicators routinely find against Councils if they are unable to show this occurred. In the interests of fairness, transparency and open dealing with consumers, as required in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 I expect a similar level of proof from an AOS member private parking firm if they are to rely on this argument at a court hearing. This is the Claimant's claim to prove.

8.I wish to ask why the DVLA has banned the use of these 'not a parking charge' fake tickets now, as shown in other VCS cases where they have admitted they have had to stop. VCS being a sister company of this Claimant, both owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith and I would like to ask Excel's Director in person to explain these two points, at the hearing.

9.Based on the time on the card, 20.07, I also assumed that as per the British parking association and the International parking community code of pracitce that I had paid for the correct amount of time in the carpark. My ticket expired at 19.56 and the card was allegedly attached to my car at 20.07. This would have only allowed me 11 minutes grace period to read all of the relevant signs upon paying and also after my visit exiting the carpark. Assuming that there is a grace period of 10 minutes to read all signs and 10 minutes to exit the carpark I was still within what I deemed a reasonable time to be leaving the carpark.

10. I did not receive a notice to keeper in the post or any further follow up so assumed my initial suspicion around the black and white card possibly being fraudulent was accurate.

11. I subsequently moved home due to the breakdown of my mother and step-fathers marriage and was no longer living at XXXXXXXX where the car was registered at the time the card was issued.

12. By chance/luck my half brother passed on a letter to me which was dated the 05/04/2019 from the county court business centre stating that I owed £160. Had I received any correspondence prior to this I would have dealt with it and tried to appeal the charge.I dealt with this as soon as I was in possession of the letter and followed the relevant processes.

13. Following on from this I immediately emailed Excel parking to ensure that they had the correct address for me for any future correspondence and also to make them aware that I was no longer registered keeper of the vehicle. I requested an SAR of the following -
- All photos taken.
- all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier
- a PDT machine record from that day, of payments made.
- all data held, all evidence they you are relying on, and a full copy of the parking charge notice and also the notice to keeper.
- and a list of all Parking charge notices you consider are outstanding against me.!

14. following on from my SAR request of the above I only received the photos taken of my car and a copy of notice to keeper and final reminder notice to keeper. I was not provided with the PDT machine record from the day or a list of parking charge notices considered outstanding against me. I was told via email that they were awaiting documentation from the debt recovery before they could complete the SAR which was then sent to me on the 30/05/19. See attached PDF. In this PDF there is no correspondence from any debt recovery companies and therefore I can only assume that these were not sent in the first place otherwise Excel would have included them in their response to my SAR.

15. I would like to point out that as this car park does not offer a free parking period the Parking Eye v Beavis case does not apply.

16.It is my intention to challenge this claim for payment under the following grounds and in no particular order

(I) Grace Periods – I allegedly overstayed 11 mins. I returned to the car, I do not believe this was more than 10 mins past the expiry of the ticket. However, the red card PCN saying 'this is not a PCN' confused me so much, that I didn't think to actually start comparing timings to protect myself from an unexpected later court claim. The industry standard British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Conduct states

“15. Grace Periods
* 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. 

* 15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.”

(II) Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

17.I would like to question what authority do EXCEL have to circumvent the law, POFA2012 and the courts own double recovery rules.

18.CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

19.Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny.

20.The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

21.In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

22.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

23.Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

“
at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''
”
24.Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, I aver that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

25.According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

26.The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

27.Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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...''

28.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

29.In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is my position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

30.There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. I am of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

31.The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant.


32.I believe the facts stated in this witness statement to be true.

Caspar13

Also, in the witness statement they have sent me their photos are a year out of date and have a different charging amount on the signs. There are no photos of the signs on the day of the ticket. Is it worth me query why they have no evidence showing the signs on the day of the alleged overstay?

Redx

Yes , query everything you can , especially errors like the above

Never let ammunition go unused , add them as further Exhibits with unique exhibit references , same as I mentioned yesterday and refer to them in your WS

Caspar13

15.I would like to query why the photos sent to myself within the claimants witness statements (exhibit 4) are all outdated from July 2017 which was before the alleged over stay took place. There are no photos of the signage at the time of the alleged overstay and on top of this the signs show outdated payment amounts (old payment amount in 2017 was £2 and I paid £2.50). I would like proof of the signs available in the carpark at the time of the alleged overstay to show the correct contract entered into with EXCEL on the day.

KeithP

Caspar13 wrote: »

15.I would like to query why the photos sent to myself within the claimants witness statements (exhibit 4) are all outdated from July 2017 which was before the alleged over stay took place. There are no photos of the signage at the time of the alleged overstay and on top of this the signs show outdated payment amounts (old payment amount in 2017 was £2 and I paid £2.50). I would like proof of the signs available in the carpark at the time of the alleged overstay to show the correct contract entered into with EXCEL on the day.

That's a bit soft, isn't it?

Be more assertive. There is no place for things like "I would like...".

How about something like:

The Claimant's photographs of the signs are two years out of date - well before the alleged parking incident took place. The Claimant's evidence even shows an outdated tariff. I therefore maintain that the signs shown were not those used to form the alleged contract with the driver.

Instead of '(exhibit 4)', refer directly to the exhibit in the Claimant's evidence.

Coupon-mad

The industry standard British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Conduct states

Excel are not in the BPA AOS so are not subject to that CoP. You need the IPC CoP.

Caspar13

Hi guys, the driver has received a letter from the courts stating that the “defendant having failed to comply with the previous order requiring the filing of evidence to be relied upon” in unsure why I have received this as driver filed all evidence and witness statement prior to the deadline via email to both the claimant and the courts on the email addresses provided. How am I best to go about this?