Excel lose application to set aside SIX struck out parking charge cases where £60 was added

Coupon-mad

This has hit their pocket in so many ways, but we really need to stop PPCs from issuing claims at all, and certainly not with £60 added (never mind that they bleat they don't know whether it will go to a good court or a bad one - that is not a reason to add duplicitous sums). 

Well done all!  Well done too, for not fainting in court!

I am sure lamilad will post here too when he gets a chance.

henrik777

Excel said they always add on the extra costs as some courts allow it and some don’t and at the time of issuing a claim they cannot know which court it will end up at

Well if that doesn't describe abuse of process i don't know what would.

Lamilad

Erinandi said:

Lamilad used the Summer vs Fairclough to argue our point, though he was corrected a couple of times by Judge Wright when he mentioned it being a fraudulent claim.

An excellent report Erinandi. Not a great deal I can add to that.

Mr Dunn turning up with a list of submissions from Excel, ostensibly a skeleton argument, and a WS from Jake Burgess was a total ambush as these had not been served. His excuse was that he wasn't expecting any D's to turn up as the notice of hearing excused their attendance (but said they could attend if they wish)

I wasn't having that as giving the D's sight of these documents may have been a deciding factor in their decision to attend or not.

This was discussed briefly at the start of the hearing but Judge Wright wasn't particularly concerned about it. I took that as an early sign that she was already pretty sure what decision she was going to make.

After Mr Dunn had presented his case I used Summers vs Fairclough to try to steer the court towards a view that the Claimant, by submitting a fraudulent claim, was in contempt and even if the claim proceeded without the extra £60, the additional charge was still fraudulent and could invite contempt proceedings as happened in SvF. As mentioned, I was quickly stopped in my tracks. The Judge didn't like my use of the word "fraudulent" and I don't think she wanted me making a pretty straight forward hearing more complex.

To rebut the C's position that they still had the right to pursue the claim without the added charge, I submitted that without this the rest of the claim was doomed to fail as it was their case that the £60 covered admin and debt recovery costs, so with that removed how could they justify the £100 charge given that Beavis stated that this included the 'operational costs of running the scheme'. So even if the claim continued it would immediately fail Beavis and therefore have no prospect of success (it was Coupon Mad who put this argument in my head 😏 )
Judge Wright was nodding in agreement with this but I was preaching to the choir.

As for costs the Judge said that as she found the C was in abuse of process she could not then find that they had behaved reasonably. She seemed to accept the costs schedule but felt she had to cut it as it was disproportionate. Mr Dunn couldn't make any coherent argument to dissuade her on costs other than to moan a bucket full about the £10 for printing/stationary. I conceded that to shut him up.

beamerguy

Well done Lami

So EXCEL add on the fake £60 just hoping that a judge will allow it .......... that is the mindset of a scammer
The start of 2020 has not been good for EXCEL/VCS and with the courts closing in on them, we can only hope with this abuse they are sanctioned

Tazman1969

I have been on this forum for sometime now and read loads of posts & though I'm no expert and sometimes make comments to try and help I have learned a great deal. Whilst dealing with a PPC  for over 3 years waiting for a claim form to drop on the mat, can I just say that posts like this give me so much confidence.
There should be a link to cases like this where every Newbie should read up and as with me give them the confidence to keep fighting...
Well done everyone...think I might pick Skipton as my local Court or Southampton as they are getting slaughtered, even though it's miles away turn it into a little outing.

Lamilad

Umkomaas said:

Well done lamilad, good to know you are still operating in the background. I bet Excel rue the day they ever tangled with you! 😎

Thanks, Umko, I changed jobs a while ago which coincided with a change in my personal circumstances so I just haven't the time to get involved the way I used to. Which is a shame because I miss it. Hopefully things settle down this year and I can spend more time on the forum.

Which brings to another point - I'm not sure I like the new format 🤨

Umkomaas

Which brings to another point - I'm not sure I like the new format 

Join the club. I don't contribute as much since the change of format (even got PPR'd for a week because the new system didn't like the SA IP address I was using), I just don't find it easy to read, or easily keep track of threads I've contributed to and the search function seems pants. It's taking me twice as long now to do anything substantive, forcing me to contribute generally where 'one-liners' or one of my templates is enough to point the OP in the right direction. 

kryten3000

Lamilad said:

To rebut the C's position that they still had the right to pursue the claim without the added charge, I submitted that without this the rest of the claim was doomed to fail as it was their case that the £60 covered admin and debt recovery costs, so with that removed how could they justify the £100 charge given that Beavis stated that this included the 'operational costs of running the scheme'. So even if the claim continued it would immediately fail Beavis and therefore have no prospect of success (it was Coupon Mad who put this argument in my head 😏 )
Judge Wright was nodding in agreement with this but I was preaching to the choir.

Applause!

Coupon-mad

Did DJ Wright (and Mr Dunn) accept and read the Southampton judgment, or was that just a crib sheet in this case?

Shame that all five (originally listed as six?) Defendants didn't turn up en masse and claim their costs on the indemnity basis too.  They didn't know what they missed and won't know the outcome yet, either. 

They could have bee paid by Excel to watch Lamilad destroy Excel (!) and effectively, that's what happened to Erinandi - which is poetic justice.

P.S.  Hello Excel, we know you must be smarting about this one, and one of you had a little email chat with bargepole, haha!  The good guys and gals won again...

Lamilad

Coupon-mad said:

Did DJ Wright (and Mr Dunn) accept and read the Southampton judgment, or was that just a crib sheet in this case?

She had it Infront of her during the hearing and glanced at it a few times when I was referring to it. I had the usher pass it to her 30 mins before the hearing so she may have read it before we went in. Her judgement certainly echoed very closely with that of Judge Grand.

I said early on that I hadn't prepared a skeleton argument as it would just be repeating the points in the Soton judgement.