Excel / myparkingcharge Final Demand

nosferatu1001

You got costs? Nice! how much? 
CONGRATS!

myparkingchargevictim

nosferatu1001 said:

You got costs? Nice! how much? 
CONGRATS!

I had put down 6 hours at £19 an hour which seemed to be the going rate. The Judge was perfectly happy with this. Other costs such as loss of earnings and printing I was not able to claim due to not submitting evidence beforehand. I think he would've preferred some sort of proof of my salary or wage within the bundle to satisfy under the CPR 27.14(2)(g)

Snakes_Belly

Well done Looking forward to your report. A good start to the week. 

Snakes_Belly

These directions hearings plus a further hearing must be proving expensive especially if the second hearing is allocated for two hours.

Fruitcake

Please include the case number, the court, the date of hearing, and the judge's name. I am particularly interested in the comments about the scammers using their own letterhead with the alleged landowner's name/signature as opposed to an actual contract, as there are a couple of similar cases on this forum at the moment. It would help them to be able to quote your case and the judge's comments on this matter.

Umkomaas

Can we have a look at the 'landowner agreement statement' please. Was this one of those signed by 'Alun Cockcroft'? - these often state that Excel lease the car park from the landowner. 

Le_Kirk

Abso bloomin' lootely fantastic.  Looking forward to the court report.

Redx

Well done , yet another badly thought out and Iil prepared claim by JB,s legal department !!
Another one bites the dust , eventually !!  😄👍

myparkingchargevictim

Case Number: F1QZ41NF,
Date of Hearing: 22/02/2021,
Judge: District Judge Augustine at Birmingham County Court.
Excel Parking Services v MPCV (me keeping anonymous )
---
The account of events:

• Was invited onto a BT MeetMe call with the Claimant (From ELMS Legal) already on the line
• The Judge confirmed neither of us were recording the call and asked us to confirm on the record
• The Judge started by asking the claimant what the legal basis of the claim was. The Claimant muttered something, but I couldn't quite make out what she was saying. The Judge replied by saying "but what is the ACTUAL legal basis of your claim" to which she replied "a breach of contract"
• The Judge then asked her how a breach of contract had occurred, to which she used the same lines "The driver agrees into the contract when driving past the sign" etc etc. 
• The Judge was somewhat happy with this answer. His next point was a question of how Excel have proprietary interest in the land to which they seek to claim the losses on.
• The Claimant replied by pointing the Judge to Page 20 (attached, but redacted the car park address) which shows the Contract of Agreement that allows Excel to act on behalf of the landowner. (Judging my @Umkomaas 's comment, it seems to be quite generic)
• The Judge took issue with this document since it uses language such as "on behalf of" and is printed on Excel's own Letterheaded paper. He did not accept this document to prove that Excel has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to pursue this claim. 
• The Judge used words such as "I'm shocked this claim even made it this far" to the claimant. 
• The Judge was fair and understood I was self-representing. He made it clear, where needed, he would step in to assist me in making my points. 
• The Judge then explained that he was striking out the claim and then asked me if I had any questions, to which I referred him to the schedule of costs document I had sent in my bundle.
• The Judge asked me to explain how Excel have acted "unreasonably" in this whole process to which I replied "the language used in letters sent to my address being both threatening and attempting double recovery by means of adding the £60 cost".
• The Judge was perfectly happy with this, but he couldn't award my other listed costs due to me not supplying the relevant evidence (such as salary information, proof of printing costs etc). These were all minor, however.
• The Judge awarded me the Costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and the claimant confirmed this would be paid within the 14 days.

---
All in all, other than just discussing the formal matter of claiming costs and confirming my name, I didn't have to breathe a word. We didn't even get to the whole "abuse of process" argument. The Judge took my defence points, in order, and questioned this to the Claimant. My point about whether the Claimant has proprietary interest in the land was Paragraph 7 so was read out fairly early. 

I would also like to say (to anyone reading this in the future), even if you think you've messed your case up, by not doing the defence properly, or missing something out in your WS, don't feel too demotivated! Keep at it, do as much research as possible.

Some key learning points for me:

• Along with the schedule of costs, send proof of earnings and proof of postage, printing and anything else you wish to claim
• Proofread your work. And get someone else to! I noticed a few typo's in re-reading everything yesterday for today's hearing. It can go a long way.
• Get a Dashcam - It sucked not having any proof of the lack of signage at the time of my visit to the car park. Thankfully, this case was able to be ruled out on the basis described above

Once again, a massive thank you to everyone on this forum. Things can only go up from here!  
I'll send on any formal judgement documents in this thread which may be of some use for existing cases (and future ones) in due course.

Snakes_Belly

Thank you for the report.

The contract is interesting as it is similar to the contracts for a number of ongoing cases at the moment including the car park at Derby Street, Burton on Trent.  Although they may have a lease there is no evidence as to whether the lease is still in force. I always thought that these statements were not worth the paper that they are written on and a copy of the actual lease should be provided.