Excel claim - defence advice

Snakes_Belly

I hope that it goes well and I will be rooting for you. 

Signage (or lack of it) is going to be a major defence point. Those images that Fruitcake produced of the car park have been used a number of times. 

Haven't seen any posts recently from the poster whose wedding party was ticketed or from the poster who had parked in an Excel space with a paid ticket from the other operator. Easily done as they are in the same row.

Troubled42

So so sorry for not updating this.

All I can say is - ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST
  

it's hard to put into words how happy we were at the time and the judge was extremely switched on, seemingly impressed with the amount of effort we had put into the overall bundle.
The judge paraphrased our line by line of defensive points towards the C... which was most amusing.

The biggest pitfall for the C of course was that they stated they never actually received our defence.
When it originally went to CCBC, the C essentially submitted their copy paste witness statement very quickly after the DQ's.
Our witness statement followed shortly after before the deadline and everything was aligned for a hearing.

The C stated they had 'not seen our witness statement' in their own statement. Cool, fair enough, you submitted it very early and we submitted ours later on. However, despite the deadlines, they would've still received a copy from the court for this matter to be progressed.... and of course do remember, there had already been a 'Round 1' dispute resolution hearing of which C's rep also fumbled on 'not having the right paperwork'.

To cut a long story short - we didn't even really dip into our 42 page defence bundle because of Excel's own ineptitude...!
Lets be fair, that was a little disappointing but what do you expect from these parasites? (:

The rep for the final hearing again blamed the rep on the last hearing for not disputing the fact that there was a defence statement provided.
The judge essentially came out with this pearler, which roughly was;
"When a C files a claim, it goes onto a computised system. If a defence is not filled... the system alerts the court that the defence has not been filled..... It was filled, because the court then went onto allocate the case. None of this would've happened if the defendant did not file their defence.
The defence would've been available to the Claimant at the dispute resolution hearing, otherwise they would've raised at that hearing that it wasn't received"

Overall the C's rep felt they were disadvantaged and asked for the matter to be adjourned for a short while. (We rolled our eyes at this point at the frustrated feeling that it could be dragged out for a few more months!)
The defendant commented to say that he has done everything that the court has asked him to do and on time. The C's issues are not his. He also stated his disappointment at how long it has taken to resolve the case overall. The judge seemed to warm to this.

Another line I remember from the judge at the time of summary was (not to blow our own trumpet or anything ):
"The defendant filled a defence which was both detailed and lengthy - and took issue with a number of technical and practical issues in relation to the claim."

So here it is, summed up by that glorious letter in the post.


The defendant just wanted this over and done with - as you can imagine, they were over the moon and weren't fussed at all about the costs being rejected.
I will however mention it as I personally thought it could've been challenged.

Costs were originally;


From my notes, the response from the Judge was;
"You can't really claim £19/hr as a litigant in person, its not going to happen. Really what you can claim for is the loss of earnings for today and that's what I would be prepared to allow." I think the Judge felt that unreasonable behaviour CPR27 wouldn't normally apply. (?)
The parking/trip costs can safely be ignored anyway as this was held on MS Teams.

The defendant responded that they were recently retired so on this particular day, loss of earnings would not come into effect.
Again, sat there as a mackenzie friend and by just reading the body language, the defendant happily responded to not pressing this further.. although one could argue that it has still taken hours worth of work (especially during when the defendant was actually in work) to compile the bundle.

It is what it is! Happy to hear any thoughts on how you feel the costs could've been challenged.

Either way, it has been a long slog and it has caused the defendant no ends of meaningless stress.

Much of the defendant bundle is available in this thread for future reference in redacted form, should anyone else need it in the future. (although always read the newbies guide for the latest/updated information/templates)

Anyway - nevermind the defendants bundle being watertight and solid - it was the help of everyone here that built this bundle... and we could not have done it without you. a huge well done to the MSE parking community.
We are very grateful.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

Le_Kirk

Excellent report and excellent outcome.  Well done.

Coupon-mad

Yay, great news! ANOTHER Excel one bites the dust! 

I can’t say whether you could have got more costs as I’ve never yet got costs awarded for any case I’ve lay repped!  The important thing is the win, but there is a more important wider picture this Summer:

Please come back in August to this forum and keep checking till you find us talking about the all-important final Government Public Consultation because you will be an ideal member of the public to respond!   So will the Defendant - do at least 2 separate responses and rope in the driving adults in your family, too, as this affects them all.

The MHCLG needs real people to help them shape and decide the level of parking charges and they’ve already stated that the lower level will be £50 (£25) not £100. Great!

But the PPCs will also be responding to the Consultation so we need real members of the public to balance that and share your own views and experience of an horrific court claim and bully boy letters ruining your peace of mind for years.

Snakes_Belly

I am so happy to hear your good news I wondered how you had got on. Was the case heard at Walsall?

Judge was obviously impressed with the bundle. Excel always seem to be losing defences. 

I think that the images that Fruitcake did of the car park probably helped. They have been used a number of times.

I hope that the lady who had the wedding at the Travelodge is still fighting her corner and the other poster who had parked on Excel's car park and bought a ticket from the Station machine (easily done) as the demarcation is very poor.

Excel has lost most of the cases at this car park when fought on this forum with one exception 

Snakes_Belly

As a matter of interest Excel pay £20K per annum for the lease of the car park. This car park is not located in the town so not a shopper's car park. It serves mainly the Travelodge and the station although there are two other station car parks.

During the lockdowns there would be no business for the Travelodge and less business for the station. The station car park at the higher level tends to fill up first as it is the nearest.

I doubt very much whether Excel are covering their costs on this car park. My    bleeds (not).