Excel claim - defence advice

Le_Kirk

Snakes_Belly said:

The sign at the entrance is hidden from view by other signs. There are numerous irrelevant signs within the car park. The main sign at the pay and display machine contains a huge amount of information in tiny font. I would stress the entrance to the car park where the sign is not visible. This would be what should form the contract. When you enter onto Millers Lane from Derby Street the sign is not visible because you are driving and may not have driven past it if you continued down Millers Lane. There are could also be cars that are leaving the car park that could also block your view. These cars may have to wait some time as they may have to cross into the second lane of traffic on a busy road. There are also a number of other signs some of them blocking Excel's sign. This is where Excel will say that the contract is formed.  

Wouldn't this be better at the WS stage, just leave in the standard signage as written by C-m?

Le_Kirk

17.       The Claimant’s particulars refer to the car park terms and conditions being ‘clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations’. There are no terms and condition signs at the entrance of the car park from the main road. The only sign relevant states that it is a public car park and lists the appropriate charges. The entrance of the car park splits off into two roads, both of which the car park in question are accessible. There are significant differences depending on which direction the user takes in regards to the signage seen by users of the car park.

Maybe adjust thusly: -

17.       The Claimant’s particulars refer to the car park terms and conditions being ‘clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations’. There are no terms and condition signs at the entrance of the car park from the main road. The only relevant sign states that it is a public car park and lists the appropriate charges. The entrance of the car park splits off into two roads, from both of which the car park in question are is accessible. There are significant differences depending on which direction the user takes in regards to the signage seen by users of the car park.

Snakes_Belly

"Wouldn't this be better at the WS stage, just leave in the standard signage as written by -Cm?"

I was just trying to point out some of the issues regarding this car park.

Troubled42

Fruitcake said:

I still have all the google streetview images I passed to Snakes_Belly, so either of us can provide you with them if that's helpful.
Luckily the google camera car went all the way round the Travelodge so it is a good source of images including the route in via the Lidl car par that has no entrance signs at all. 
At some point you need to mention this and aver that it is possible that's how the driver entered the site, and require Excel to prove the contrary is true.
You can probably find an image of the exact spot where the car was allegedly stopped and the location of signs. Once you get used to using street view it's easy to use and adjust the timeline to when the incident allegedly happened. You can then do a screengrab (Alt print screen/prt sc if using Windows) and paste it into an editing suite such as photoshop or paint etcetera to either use as is or crop etcetera. Always make sure the image capture date is visible at the bottom of the image.

Irrespective of whether Travelodge own the car park or not, always complain and say no member of your family will ever go back there if this isn't cancelled. Definitely leave negative feedback on their website and Trapadvisor, Fakebook etcetera.

As for possible drivers, having more than one named driver on the insurance policy is useful. Other family members and friends having use of the car should also be mentioned.

Have a look at Jopson vs Homeguard (Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services) where the judge defined parking as opposed to loading/unloading which of course can be applied to both goods and people.

It is worth noting that although Snakes_Belly lost her case, she only had to pay £3 in costs, which was the parking fee that she couldn't pay because the P & D machine was broken. My personal opinion is that the judge was taking the urine out of Excel by doing this.
She came here as  a worried newbie but ended up a winner in my opinion, and is now a regular who comes here to help others beat this disgusting scam.

Thanks for the very helpful feedback there.
I've been all over Google and yes its very helpful to see these images. The route taken on the day would've actually been down Millers Lane and surprise surprise - signage is pretty non existent this route. The vehicle was even parked at the front of the hotel and there's also no T&C's at the front... but there is some behind - which weren't seen.

At the end of the day this is genuinely crap signage and most of the default defence should cover this. If they are foolish enough to proceed further then I'm sure we can take them to town on it.
Le_Kirk, thanks for your edits. I've included those.

Edited defence 08.04 @ 6pm

16.      The Defendant is not the main/only driver of this vehicle. It is not established thus far, whether the car was parked, or just stopped momentarily and caught by predatory ticketing.  It is not accepted that the location included prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge. A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

17. The Claimant’s particulars refer to the car park terms and conditions being ‘clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations’. There are no terms and condition signs at the entrance of the car park from the main road. The only relevant sign states that it is a public car park and lists the appropriate charges. The entrance of the car park splits off into two roads, from both of which the car park in question are is accessible. There are significant differences depending on which direction the user takes in regards to the signage seen by users of the car park.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Snakes_Belly

This now could be a long wait for you.  You could read up on some of the cases that they are likely to use in their WS and how to argue them.  One of the cases relates to a barrier car park which bears no resemblance to the Derby Street Car park. 

Like yourself I went straight down Miller's Lane and turned right by the Travelodge parking up directly in front of the Travelodge. It's not possible to see the sign when you enter.  The judge will have no idea of how strange this car park is and you will need to communicate that.

On the positive side the representatives struggle with understanding the plan and Excel's WS of mainly irrelevant material. 

They also could be in administration by then (wishful thinking).

Troubled42

Defence submitted folks.
Thanks for all your help and support. Hopefully this doesn't go all the way but I anticipate delays with the current climate...
Two burning questions;
Does a judge read the defence and determine if there's a case to be heard?
What would be the average wait time to hear a response? Assuming this will be doubled if not more given the circumstances.

nosferatu1001

1) sometimes
2) Next stage is DQ, thats quick 
Read the newbies thrread
You have 2 more steps before a hearing. 

Snakes_Belly

I think sometimes that the judge reads the case and decides how it will proceed.  They may suggest a paper or telephone hearing. Avoid this at all costs as you will have to communicate the ambiguity of the car park and lack of signage on entry. Insist on an oral hearing.

It could be a long time before you get at date. I assume as you were staying at the Travelodge that you are not from Staffordshire.  Upstanding's case was scheduled to be heard at Derby, both Keep Calm's cases were heard at Derby, mine was heard at Stafford.

We were very expensive ladies and these were costly cases for Excel/VCS. In Keep Calm's second case she was not even parked on their car park and they ticketed the car. Judge awarded costs for unreasonable behaviour.

Troubled42

Evening all.
Seems our defence has been acknowledged quite quickly and the DQ has been received today.

The DQ references witnesses and it begs the question on whether or not we should state two at this stage or just keep it at one? There were two people in the vehicle at the time. Both statements would be very similar..
Other than that, we are filling in the DQ as per the newbies thread. (bargepole's post)
Is there a way we can absolutely make sure that the defence has my included appendices? We did send these all via email..
or... Should we just send all of the appendices to the Claimant when we send them a copy of the DQ; (A, B & C) rather than just send Appendix C?

In terms of court, the closest is Walsall County and family court. The only other would be Birmingham we think... thats assuming this takes months and we're out of lockdown of course!
Thanks for your continued support.