Excel Parking Services LTD - County Court Business Centre

Coupon-mad

ivodj9270 wrote: »

So i completed the AOS, i did not put anything on the defence box and on the signature box i put the defendant.

You didn't put their name?

Has MCOL updated to shows the claim as acknowledged, or not? This is vital.

ivodj9270

I put "The defendant" on the signed box; everything else was on my name by default, like on the letter from the Court:
This is the Claim History:

"A claim was issued against you on 10/07/2019
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/07/2019 at 11:12:04
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 12/07/2019 at 12:05:12"

ivodj9270

And this is the Defence Draft:

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:

1) The Defendant was not known to be the driver of the vehicle on the date in question.

2) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with.
a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver
b) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording.
c) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

3) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

4) The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

5) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

6) No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

7) The claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request emailed by the defendant and sent to Excel Parking Services Ltd on the DATE.
a) A request to explain if Excel Parking Services Ltd are making a claim as an agent of the landowner or making the claim as occupier in their own right.
b) A request to explain if the amount claimed by Excel Parking Services Ltd is for a genuine pre estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum?
c) A request to provide copies of the signs on which Excel Parking Services Ltd rely and confirm the signs were in situ on the date of the event. Also to provide the date the signs were installed.
d) A request to confirm that the signs were at the entrance to the site on the date in question. Also to confirm that the signs meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1.
e) Report from the ticket machine during the times where the defendant is accused of not displaying a valid ticket
I HAVE NOT SEND THIS YET TO EXCEL, I ONLY SENT THE SAR, WHAT SHOULD I DO?

8) The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
d) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.
e) The claimant has shown no evidence of 'failure to pay and display' by the unknown driver.

9) The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representatives costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.

10) If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

11) Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, DATED are true."

Coupon-mad

Independent Parking Committee (IPC)

Really old name for the IPC and really old defence draft. You haven't sent part 18 request so you can't talk about that, and all of it smacks as having been copied from a non 2019 example. It's all very templatey and much of that is irrelevant.

None of these facts are in the defence you drafted:

start getting these letter a month after and i did not keep the ticket to prove i did pay.

I asked them to please, send me a report from the machine during the times they stated i was there to prove to them i paid, and see what it was the issue:
1 - Human error from my side, i have made a typo on the keyboard, getting my plate wrong or put the plate number of my motorbike instead my car
2 - Error from their part or the machine itself.
They never came back to me

Stop signing things off as ''The Defendant'' and start using your name, assuming you are the named person on the claim form.

I am no sure if i have any chance on defending this,

You will of you stop copying old examples, and read some recent Excel claim or VCS defence threads. Search the forum, there are LOADS you could copy from (VCS and Excel claims match each other as they are sister firms).

Copy from more recent 2019 ones and show us your new draft, with the facts in it.

What is the issue date (top right) of your N1 claim form and how much is being claimed altogether (bottom right) and what does the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM say on the left, word for word?

KeithP

ivodj9270 wrote: »

The issue date from the County Court Business Centre is 10/Jul/2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th August 2019 to file your Defence.

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


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed 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 an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.

ivodj9270

As soon as i get back home i will provide the following info:

What is the issue date (top right) of your N1 claim form and how much is being claimed altogether (bottom right) and what does the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM say on the left, word for word?

As well, once the drafted version is final, i shall change "The Defendant" to my "Name Surname" right?

I changed the defence and this is the draft:

Claim Number: *******

Excel Parking Ltd v ******

Statement of Defence

It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:

1) The facts are that the vehicle, registration *****, of which the defendant is the registered keeper might not have been the driver at the time in question and Vehicle Control Services (VCS) have not complied with the protection of freedoms act (PoFA) schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the registered keeper (the defendant). There is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle is the Defendant.
2) The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time. As well, the claimant has shown no evidence of 'failure to pay and display' by the Defendant.
3) The terms on the claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
4) I contacted the Claimant on 23/04/2015 to get a report from the PDT machine during the times they stated that my vehicle was parked to prove them that the payment was made, since it could have been:
a) PDT machine problem, where the plate was registered but the ANPR did not recognize it, or vice versa
b) Human error from the Defendant’s side, it have made a typo on the keyboard, getting the registration number wrong or put the registration number of my motorbike instead the car
5) On 18/07/2019, I contacted again the Claimant requesting the Subject Access Request (SAR) on myself, which I haven’t received as yet.
6) 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 £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, the claim includes £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be a double recovery.
7) The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal representatives costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the Defendant.
8) The Defendant requires a copy of the contract (the signage terms on the material date) and a full and detailed explanation of the cause of action and on what basis they purport to hold the Defendant liable. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the POC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
9) No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any Defendant; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
10) 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 an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''
11) If the Defendant on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
12) In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's 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 mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
13) 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. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
14) 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Therefore I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence, DATED are true."

ivodj9270

UPDATE on the below:

What is the issue date (top right) of your N1 claim form and how much is being claimed altogether (bottom right) and what does the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM say on the left, word for word?

Issue Date:
10 Jul 2019
Amount Claimed £160 + Court Fee i£25.00 + Legal fees £0 TOTAL £185
Particulars of the claim:
"The Claim is for breach of the contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendant's Vehicle XXXXXX, was identified in the Powis Street - Woolwich on the 11/04/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and condtions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit. At all material time the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was to offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically details the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking change notice will be issues, and the Defendant has failed to settled the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest"

ivodj9270

Hi all,

So i received a Notice if Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing), where if the claimant pay the trial fee there will a hearing setup in January.

I have contacted the claimant again, as i said i was 100% i paid, so i finally find out what happen.
Basically, i parked my car and i put my motorbikes plate instead

I sent them an email as follow:

"After all this years, i finally managed to understand what happened on 11/04/2015 when my car XXXX was parked a you car park.

11/04/2015 at 11:56 - My car XXXXX entered the parking (picture that you provided me entering)
11/04/2015 at 12:01 - A ticket was paid and issued for my motorcycle YYYYYY, instead my car, human error but ticket was paid (copy of the Pay and Display Log for tickets purchased using the VRM)
11/04/2015 at 14:03 - My car XXXXXX exit the parking (picture that you provided exiting)"

I still own YYYYYY, if any proof is required.

I hope you decide not to pursue this claim as you can understand, that we are human and mistakes can be made.

In this case, putting the plate of my bike instead my car, which we were 100% we paid.
Thanks,
Ivan"

A week later of this email, they sent me a letter saying that they willing to settle this case for a reduce amount of £125, indicating that if i dont, they have a strong case against me and i will have to pay the full amount.

Now, my question is, give that i know i paid the ticket and was a pure human error ( i got pictures and logs of it ), would a hearing accept this or would they reject may appeal since it has been 5 years and i just managed to find about it 2 weeks ago, which on my statement of defence i only mentioned the below:

"Human error from the Defendant’s side, it have made a typo on the keyboard, getting the registration number wrong or put the registration number of my motorbike instead the car" But on the 23/04/2015 i only ask them to check for my car registration' variations, motorbike plate was never mentioned


Appreciate a response.

Thanks,

Ivan