Excel PCN - Post appeal stage - Not parking within a marked bay

d1338401

Hello, all.

I've had a postal PCN from Excel Parking services for my car not being parked in a marked bay in The Square Shopping centre car park, Chorlton. I sent the standard appeal response as the owner of the vehicle, no confirmation of driver, as per the Newbie thread, and contacted my MP, whose office did contact Excel but to very little effect.

Of course, Excel rejected my appeal and advised me to appeal via IAS. I managed to let the IAS appeal window pass me by as I was crazy busy at the time. Having read a lot of threads on here, I don't feel like IAS would've been helpful anyway.

Then, when life calmed down a touch, I looked at the letter again and realised the 'reduced charge' window had also passed. I'm sure you will say 'no problem' but I was keen to put the matter to bed with a minimum of effort, so I phoned Excel to offer the reduced amount, saying I had been away from home for a few weeks. No dice - the human defect I spoke to demanded the full amount, so I hung up.

Today, I received 2 emails - first an offer to settle at the lower amount, then a second email demanding the full amount and asking me to 'ignore the previous email'.

What do we think? I'm assuming I just wait for the collections letters to start arriving now, right?

Redx

The appeal was sent as keeper of the vehicle , nothing to do with ownership

Only a court can decide this within 6 years , unless you pay in full

We would tell you to ignore Excel and the debt collectors

Come back to this thread if they send a formal LoC or a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton within 6 years

KeithP

d1338401 wrote: »

I'm assuming I just wait for the collections letters to start arriving now, right?

That's right, and post #4 of the NEWBIES thread tells you exactly how to deal with them.

d1338401

Will do. Thanks, both!

d1338401

So... I have received a claim form from CCBC, Issue date 27 Feb 2020. I acknowledged service in good time and now have to respond by 31st March. I've spent some time reading other defences, although I couldn't see any that fully reflect the circumstances of this claim. Here's what I have so far - please let me know if you need to see any of the documents related to the claim.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________

DEFENCE

________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date [in a marked bay] and had a valid permit to be parked.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. 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.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is 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.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. The font cannot be read in any of the photos provided as evidence by the Claimant. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. 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.

7. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.   [Lists contravention time - is this adequate?]

8. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

D_P_Dance

Few judges regard this as a "real" breach of contract, and if they were daft enough to take you to court the PPC  might struggle, specially as they have added an unlawful amount of £60, read this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

d1338401

Thanks for replying. I did complain to my MP earlier in the process. They wrote to Excel, received a response and then replied to me advising that I appeal via IAS. I haven't contacted my MP since - should I write to them again, given that I must respond to the claim within 2 days?

1505grandad

Suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs posted 26.2.20 by Coupon-mad with instructions (to hopefully get the claim thrown out):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

D_P_Dance

Yes write again.  The IAS is paid for by the scammers and rejects 80% of all appeals, . whereas over half of council ticket appeals are won by the motorist.

d1338401

Thanks, Dance. I'll email my MP this morning.
1505grandad: The Particulars of Claim don't make any reference to the additional £60, or any amount for that matter. Excel sent a 'DEMAND FOR PAYMENT' which included "Debt collection costs of £60.00... making the total amount now payable £160.00". Can they do this?

d1338401

Obviously, this additional £60 is included in the CCBC claim.