Excel Parking Services - CLAIM FORM RECEIVED

nosferatu1001

Volition, not violation
You've got too many "Z"s in there.

DB483

Thank you all for your help.
we have completed the AoS today.
Changes made to defence as you have all suggested - your help and input is greatly appreciated.

I have pasted below the most updated version


Statement of Defence:


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 (11:57). 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 carpark.

The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

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 authorisation 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 but took neither of these steps and continued to pursue a £100 fine plus charges.

b. 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.
• 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.

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 utilise 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, xx/xx/xxxx, are true.

SIGNED:
PRINT:

Coupon-mad

Get rid of 4 (entirely) and 8d.

And remove all this:

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 utilise 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.

Then renumber so that EVERY para has a number. at the moment some have none.

...and change the heading to DEFENCE

FINALLY, GO AND READ CEC16'S THREAD...NOW!

DB483

Thank you

can you send the link for CEC16? I have tried searching forum just now but unable to find.

Coupon-mad

No, we will categorically not give a link to a thread just below yours!

Especially when someone else on a phone has asked the exact same thing:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76490959#Comment_76490959

Get off the phone if that's the issue. You cannot POSSIBLY use a phone here!

Le_Kirk

Just look at the threads on the first page of the forum. Currently it is the ninth post down, look at the poster's name it is CEC16.

DB483

I'm actually on a laptop - not a phone.
I tried searching for CEC16 in username and threads but nothing came ask which is why i asked.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

As above, easy to find. Glad you are not on a phone like the other poster!

DB483

Hi Guys,

So we submitted the defence and have received correspondence 'notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track' - it notes that this is now a defended claim.

Am i correct in saying this just needs completing and sending back? it asks to complete the directions questionnaire if small claims track is not appropriate.

thank you for your help

Redx

Read the newbies faq sticky thread post #2 yet again

Point 8) by KeithP told you this

The DQ stage was covered years ago by bargepole , but now it is preferable to email it to the CCBC , not post it , same as the defence