Elms Legal - Excel Parking - Chorlton (Lost)

D_P_Dance

I would love to engage you in a battle of wits Sir, but I fear that half of your troops have gone AWOL

nosferatu1001

Piff - the best way to keeo this on track is to just. not. respond. 
Focus on whats actually constructive, which is the production of a good, solid defence that explains SIMPLY what you have here - whcih is the fact of two visits, only one of which is recorded

Yes, I would start that way, and incldue the detail that the entrance and exit are TWO, SEPERATE places as you did before. Just state that the camera at... didnt spot the 1st exit at X time. 

Le_Kirk

Meanwhile back at the whole point of the forum - OP do you have all you need for now with KeithP's post at 3.03 pm?  Have you followed his link and can see the defence you have been pointed at; is it good for you?

Piffpop

nosferatu1001 said:

Piff - the best way to keeo this on track is to just. not. respond. 
Focus on whats actually constructive, which is the production of a good, solid defence that explains SIMPLY what you have here - whcih is the fact of two visits, only one of which is recorded

Yes, I would start that way, and incldue the detail that the entrance and exit are TWO, SEPERATE places as you did before. Just state that the camera at... didnt spot the 1st exit at X time. 

Yes apologies, getting riled up when under pressure isn't the way to go.
---------------

The vehicle entered on the Wilbraham Road entrance at 08:44 and exited on the Nicolas Road entrance at approximately 08:45.

The vehicle then made a separate visit using the Nicolas Road entrance at 18:44 and exited on the Wilbraham Road entrance at approximately 18:45

The ANPR cameras on the Nicolas Road entrance have failed to capture these two separate visits.

---------------
Thank you, I appreciate your time and effort and understand that repeating everything, every time isn't easy.

Piffpop

Le_Kirk said:

Meanwhile back at the whole point of the forum - OP do you have all you need for now with KeithP's post at 3.03 pm?  Have you followed his link and can see the defence you have been pointed at; is it good for you?

Hi, yes, you have both been helpful, I believe you linked it the first time.
Yes it is good, just getting helpful pointers from nosferatu1001 in the bits I need to put in (#16)

D_P_Dance

Some of thes may be useful

https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web?q=parking%20double%20dipping&ssdcat=321&installsource=nag&source=nag&year=2015&locale=en_gb&geo=gb&version=22.19.9.63&cipherid=0&templatecat=sbu_w_29500_5412_21369175_ns_oem&schemacat=sbu_w&schemaver=1.0.0.0&olpchannel=limited_oem&osvers=10.0&oslocale=iso:gbr&oslang=iso:eng&os=windows&showuninstallsurvey=1&installstatus=updated&vendor=none&vendorsrc=chrome&machinelocation=242&cdest=nag&cmpgn=nov19&o=APN12175&prt=ngc&ver=3.11.3.7&tpr=111&chn=29500&guid=743cfd45-ec5c-4c5b-a851-fc3642bace5c&doi=2020-02-08&ctype=w

Piffpop

D_P_Dance said:

Some of thes may be useful

Thanks, I did look at some double dip cases when I first started researching, but I don't know where this information would be useful?

D_P_Dance

It would certainly be useful it they were daft enough to take this to court.  

Snakes_Belly

Just a word about Elms. If you do get to court which in normal circumstances is likely as Excel are very litigious.  The representative that Excel use will probably be from Elms. They are not very clued up and often only receive the paper work (which is a substantial) shortly before the case. They will never have time to read all the mainly irrelevant crap that Excel send them.  Judges tend to focus on the defence so that IMO is the most important document. 

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

Just a word about Elms. If you do get to court which in normal circumstances is likely as Excel are very litigious.  The representative that Excel use will probably be from Elms. They are not very clued up and often only receive the paper work (which is a substantial) shortly before the case. They will never have time to read all the mainly irrelevant crap that Excel send them.  Judges tend to focus on the defence so that IMO is the most important document. 

Very true, in the recent VCS case in Nottingham, not only did the judge chew up and spit out VCS, the Elms legal rep was heard leaving the court on the phone, throwing her toys all over the place.  Guess she did not have the famous SRS pram

Madam Elms simply did not have a clue