Excel Parking Services - CLAIM FORM RECEIVED

DB483

Hi there!
I am looking for some guidance after receiving a claim form regarding a parking charge on private land back in June.

The ticket machine is one which asks for your registration number when paying for parking. There was an error with the machine and a ticket was issued before the registration was inputted. However, the time for which the vehicle was parked, was paid for. There was no overstay etc.

When the private charge notice was received, a response was submitted, evidencing the proof of payment for the time parked and a copy of the ticket was sent. This was dismissed as the ticket didn't show the vehicle registration.

A defence has been completed to submit on the back of the claim form. If we post the defence here, could someone read through and provide advice, guidance or critique.
We have read the newbies threads and posts on this and have based the defence on another defence from a similar situation which was posted and received help from Lamilad.

Is this too much information to send just on the back of the claim form? or is it best to provide everything to the courts as early as possible (including evidence of ticket purchased etc?)

Also, thinking ahead - what should you include in your schedule of loss?
Thank you!

KeithP

Wait... Do not send the Defence on the supplied form.

Wait for my next post before doing anything hasty.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

DB483

Thank you - I will hold off until I hear further from you

Issue date is 31st October 2019

KeithP

DB483 wrote: »

Issue date is 31st October 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st October, you have until Tuesday 19th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service. If possible, do not do the AoS before 5th November, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd December 2019 to file your Defence.

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


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could 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.

You might want to show us your proposed Defence before filing it. It 's up to you though.

DB483

Thank you Keith,
We will wait until after 5th to File AoS.

Thank you for the advice and instructions, that's really helpful!
I have put together a defence already so i will post it for your review and advice if that's ok I will put it in another post as its a bit lengthy!

Le_Kirk

Keep all info about this issue in this thread, that way posters can help more quickly and not have to go flitting between different threads.

DB483

Here is the draft defence....


IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No.

BETWEEN:
Claimant
-AND-
Defendant


Statement of Defence:
DATE

1. The Defendant denies any liability to the claimant as a valid ticket was purchased but no/an incorrect vehicle registration number was entered at the ticket machine. A new contract was formed by acceptance of the parking ticket showing no/the incorrect registration plate.

A valid ticket was purchased for 2 hours (11:02 -13:02) and the time for which the vehicle was parked did not exceed this but in fact left prior to its expiry (XX:XX). All reasonable endeavours were made to comply with the term’s and payment was made. Evidence of the purchased parking ticket was provided to the Claimant to show proof of purchase however this was dismissed. The Claimant has access to all tickets purchased that day along with the vehicles which were captured on the ANPR camera therefore the Claimant can verify if a ticket has been purchased for the time a vehicle enters and leaves the car park.

The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own violation as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success as the claimant did not suffer any loss.

2. It is denied that the claimant has authority to bring this claim. The legitimate claimant is the landowner. 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 authorization of the stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. I have 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.
3.
a. A BBC watchdog programme about Excel Parking Services Ltd showed Excel pursuing a victim driver for mis-keying a number plate, and on public record to the BBC, their spokesperson stated that they ‘understand’ that there might be a human error in typing in a VRN and that they have ‘robust checks’ in place to ensure that fines are not issued unfairly. After sending the driver’s paid ticket to Excel to prove that a ticket was bought but displayed an inaccurate or absent number plate due to human error or machine malfunction, Excel had the opportunity to review the validity of the ticket given they have access to every ticket purchased that day as well as records of every car which is captured on the ANPR camera to confirm that the ticket was not used more than once. Excel had the opportunity to cancel the charge straight away given no loss was suffered but took neither of these steps and continued to pursue a £100 fine plus charges.

b. Excel are not at a financial loss in this case. The human error of not entering or entering the incorrect VRN number onto the ticket, cannot result in £100 penalty because that causes an imbalance against the consumer. This is a case of unfairness and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. To pursue this charge is disproportionate, unfair and not saved by the Beavis Case given the car was not taking up valuable space that the driver was not entitled to use and payment for such space was made in full.
4.
a. During a parliamentary debate on 22nd February 2018, Sir Greg Knight brought the current bill to the house.

“it is important that those parking on private land who receive a private parking notice are treated fairly and consistently. Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st Century Britain.”

b. There was a unanimous agreement with Sir Greg Knight and a bill was read and the will of Parliament is seeking to stamp out rogue ticketing and unethical methods adopted by profit driven parking companies who try to lure payment through threats an intimidation. The changes in the bill will reassure drivers that private car park operators will in the future treat them in a fair and proportionate manner.

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 – The Beavis Case, which was dependent upon and 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. 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 Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the Independent Parking Committee at the time and committed to follow Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice and its requirements. Therefore, no contract has been formed with the driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

7. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can clearly be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different’ from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
• The Claimant has no commercial justification.
• The Claimant did not follow the Independent Parking Committee BPA Code of Practice.
• The Claimant is not the Landholder and suffers no loss as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
• The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant, this is therefore unconscionable.
• The time which the vehicle was parked was paid for and proof of such has been given to Excel Parking Services Ltd therefore no loss has been suffered.
• The Court of Appeal for the Beavis Case made clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour car parks.

8.
a. 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 charged. The Defendant 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.

b. The amount claimed is £100 plus £60 contractual costs plus a £25 court fee, a total of £185. There were no visible signs to mention the £60 contractual costs on the amount claimed.

c. There are regular letter templates which are sent out hassling and pressuring individuals without understanding situations on a case-by-case basis, the costs of these automated templates would not match the aforementioned costs.

d. The £160 claimed is not representative of the loss to Excel Parking Services Ltd as the cost of 2 hours parking was £1.70, and this was paid.

9. 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 loss under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the Landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

10. 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. Furthermore, none of the correspondence between Excel Parking Services Ltd and myself was mentioned within the Particulars of Claim.

It is my opinion that there is a better alternative rather than legal proceedings, namely that we utilize the services of a completely independent ADR suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeals service, which is lacking in transparency and possibly any independence from the Independent Parking Committee, unlike the alternative offered by the BPA, 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 within this Statement of Defence,

SIGNED:

Any advice, critique welcome!!

Coupon-mad

Remove all mention of 'no loss' which I saw twice. No loss has no legs!

And change the stance to the MACHINE made the error, not the person:

1. The Defendant denies any liability to the claimant as the machine produced a valid ticket [STRIKE]was purchased[/STRIKE] but the system appears to have accepted no/an incorrect vehicle registration number, believed to be unlikely to have been the fault of the driver. [STRIKE]was entered at the ticket machine[/STRIKE]. A new contract was formed by acceptance of the parking ticket showing no/the incorrect registration plate.

This needs a paragraph number:

A valid ticket was purchased for 2 hours (11:02 -13:02) and the time for which the vehicle was parked did not exceed this but in fact left prior to its expiry (XX:XX). All reasonable endeavours were made to comply with the term’s and payment was made. Evidence of the purchased parking ticket was provided to the Claimant to show proof of purchase however this was dismissed. The Claimant has access to all tickets purchased that day along with the vehicles which were captured on the ANPR camera therefore the Claimant can verify if a ticket has been purchased for the time a vehicle enters and leaves the car park.

Remove this as it adds nothing useful:

It is my opinion that there is a better alternative rather than legal proceedings, namely that we utilize the services of a completely independent ADR suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeals service, which is lacking in transparency and possibly any independence from the Independent Parking Committee, unlike the alternative offered by the BPA, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be Independent.

And use this blog and newspaper article as well, at WS & evidence stage:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/excel-lose-in-court.html

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/meet-blessing-burgess-mum-three-13311154

And these Blogs too:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/excel-parking-services-ticket-machine.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/excel-lose-peel-centre-casemotorist-not.html

That last one leads to a link to this transcript (Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9) about a machine accepting 'QQ':

http://nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b82bcc6b68408a75d23021?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

All of the above are for WS stage, not with your defence as no evidence goes yet. But I don't want you to forget this evidence later!

DB483

Thank you Coupon Mad. I have amended as suggested and included the updated version below:


1. The Defendant denies any liability to the claimant as the machine produced a valid ticket but the system appears to have accepted no/an incorrect vehicle registration number, believed to be unlikely to have been the fault of the driver. A new contract was formed by acceptance of the parking ticket showing no/the incorrect registration plate.

2. A valid ticket was purchased for 2 hours (11:02 -13:02) and the time for which the vehicle was parked did not exceed this but in fact left prior to its expiry (XX:XX). All reasonable endeavors were made to comply with the term’s and payment was made. Evidence of the purchased parking ticket was provided to the Claimant to show proof of purchase however this was dismissed. The Claimant has access to all tickets purchased that day along with the vehicles which were captured on the ANPR camera therefore the Claimant can verify if a ticket has been purchased for the time a vehicle enters and leaves the carpark.

The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own violation as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success as the claimant did not suffer any loss.

3. It is denied that the claimant has authority to bring this claim. The legitimate claimant is the landowner. 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 authorization of the stemming from the lawful occupier of the land. I have 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.
4.
a. A BBC watchdog programme about Excel Parking Services Ltd showed Excel pursuing a victim driver for mis-keying a number plate, and on public record to the BBC, their spokesperson stated that they ‘understand’ that there might be a human error in typing in a VRN and that they have ‘robust checks’ in place to ensure that fines are not issued unfairly. After sending the driver’s paid ticket to Excel to prove that a ticket was bought but displayed an inaccurate or absent number plate due to human error or machine malfunction, Excel had the opportunity to review the validity of the ticket given they have access to every ticket purchased that day as well as records of every car which is captured on the ANPR camera to confirm that the ticket was not used more than once. Excel had the opportunity to cancel the charge straight away but took neither of these steps and continued to pursue a £100 fine plus charges.

b. Excel are not at a financial loss in this case. The human error of not entering or entering the incorrect VRN number onto the ticket, cannot result in £100 penalty because that causes an imbalance against the consumer. This is a case of unfairness and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015. To pursue this charge is disproportionate, unfair and not saved by the Beavis Case given the car was not taking up valuable space that the driver was not entitled to use and payment for such space was made in full.
5.
a. During a parliamentary debate on 22nd February 2018, Sir Greg Knight brought the current bill to the house.

“it is important that those parking on private land who receive a private parking notice are treated fairly and consistently. Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st Century Britain.”

b. There was a unanimous agreement with Sir Greg Knight and a bill was read and the will of Parliament is seeking to stamp out rogue ticketing and unethical methods adopted by profit driven parking companies who try to lure payment through threats an intimidation. The changes in the bill will reassure drivers that private car park operators will in the future treat them in a fair and proportionate manner.

6. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 – The Beavis Case, which was dependent upon and 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 was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

7. 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 Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the Independent Parking Committee at the time and committed to follow Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice and its requirements. Therefore, no contract has been formed with the driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

8. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can clearly be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was ‘entirely different’ from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:
• The Claimant has no commercial justification.
• The Claimant did not follow the Independent Parking Committee BPA Code of Practice.
• The Claimant is not the Landholder and does not suffer loss as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
• The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant, this is therefore unconscionable.
• The time which the vehicle was parked was paid for and proof of such has been given to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
• The Court of Appeal for the Beavis Case made clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour car parks.

9.
a. 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 charged. The Defendant 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.

b. The amount claimed is £100 plus £60 contractual costs plus a £25 court fee, a total of £185. There were no visible signs to mention the £60 contractual costs on the amount claimed.

c. There are regular letter templates which are sent out hassling and pressuring individuals without understanding situations on a case-by-case basis, the costs of these automated templates would not match the aforementioned costs.

d. The £160 claimed is not representative of the loss to Excel Parking Services Ltd as the cost of 2 hours parking was £1.70, and this was paid.

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 loss under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. 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. Furthermore, none of the correspondence between Excel Parking Services Ltd and myself was mentioned within the Particulars of Claim.

Therefore, I ask the court to respectfully strike out this claim with immediate effect.
I believe that the facts stated within this Statement of Defence, 04/11/2019, are true.

Coupon-mad

You have not removed ALL mention of 'no loss' like I advised you to.

Typo here, Inspector Morse would turn in his grave...!

endeavors

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.

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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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