Excel claim - defence advice

nosferatu1001

To repeat - you MUST do the above on the day
do not forget it
right now write it on the notes you're compiling. 

Troubled42

Excellent feedback from everyone so far. Thank you.
We have spruced up the witness statement with these additions, particularly around the contract not being detailed or signed properly. We hope we've made sense of this in the WS.
We have changed any edits into red text so it's easier on the eyes on what has been changed since last night.

Coupon-mad said:

I assume they also supplied photos of your car without a p&d ticket from them - but is it clear where your car was parked, exactly - does it prove you were not in an Excel bay?   Did they include a machine record to prove that no payment was made to their machine that matched your numberplate - or did they miss that too?

For everyone's benefit, we have now attached the hearing paper & what they are requesting, as well as the pictures taken by the warden on the day. -> Hearing orders / warden pictures / Scammer WS <-
CM - Although this car park is indeed confusing as hell, they were parked right in front of the travelodge and did not go into the area where it is controlled by two operators. it's just P&D - you do not enter your reg into the machine.

We find it amusing the first two pictures by the warden seem to be in black & white... are they trying to imitate there's a camera in operation?? We have doubled checked the area & as far as we are concerned there's definitely no ANPR system. We would've thought the signs would reflect this as well if so... anyway. Last note is the warden's decision to take a picture of the tax disc which is still in the car for nostalgia reasons.. the cheek.

We have bumped up the fact their WS is not signed as #1 priority on the Crib sheet.
it is of note however - our defence was digitally signed and we intend to do the same with the witness statement. We are wondering if its actually just better to sign it in person and scan it.. or at least provide a 'proper' digital signature.

We have included the 2nd witness statement but as expected it is pretty baron. We could go all out and reattach similar exhibits of the Millers lane entrance but we are not sure if this is necessary?

In regards to the reviews - would it be appropriate to redact the names of the reviewers?

We think we are nearly there with this one..!
A little bit more scrutiny and its complete..

Coupon-mad

There can't be an ANPR system in operation if Excel's machines don't ask for a VRM to be input, because ANPR needs that info.  So it must be manual images (someone's phone pics) taken by some predatory eejit on foot who can't get a proper job so 'works' for Excel while they keep looking for one.

No need to react the names of reviewers who have put their names in the public domain. Add the newspaper article a well - and not as a hyperlink, as an actual image exhibit.

Did you include the fact that she has misquoted from Vine (like we told you already) and that's an attempt to mislead the court. Did you include this point too?

The tariffs on the sign at the site are different to the ones shown in their WS taken from a stock image (it doesn't show the daily rates). This makes the stock image a false instrument because that sign does not exist at the location in question.

We have bumped up the fact their WS is not signed as #1 priority on the Crib sheet.
it is of note however - our defence was digitally signed and we intend to do the same with the witness statement. We are wondering if its actually just better to sign it in person and scan it.. or at least provide a 'proper' digital signature.

Either is fine as long as you sign and date it - like she didn't!

Odd to see it's listed as a DISPUTE RESOLUTION HEARING for just half an hour - that's not a proper, full hearing!  Seize the moment to win it within 2 minutes by getting their WS and all the appended exhibits struck out on the spot! 

No agreeing to an adjournment - be ready for them to try asking - NO, it would be wholly unfair on you.  This claim has no merit anyway and has caused you enough stress already and this is a legally-represented Claimant and if they can't even get the April 2020 statement of truth right, let alone manage to sign the WS, then there should be no 'relief from sanctions' under the circumstances (after all, you managed it!) and their case should stand struck out.

Umkomaas

On a very quick skim of the Excel WS, the section headed 'Title and Interest' doesn't seem to square with the landowner contract that suggests Excel are the leaseholders.

Fruitcake

Just a few comments of minor import.
It looks like your car was parked up against the hotel building, roughly where snakes belly's car was parked in her case. The scamtendant has not taken any pics showing this, possibly because there are no parking signs on that face of the hotel building. The scamtendant has not recorded the vehicle arriving on site, nor via which entrance it arrived.
The images that do show signs, clearly show the signage is too far away to be read, is behind the vehicle, and appears to be part of an entirely different car park.
Some of the photos show random cars in a random place bearing no relation to the place where the vehicle was parked. 

A motorist arriving via Millers Lane after turning off Derby Road might see the car park sign to their right in amongst the clutter of all the other signs and buildings, but there are no car parking signs on Millers Lane itself. The entrance sign in the google street view image is not where the site plan/ map shows it to be.
The entrance to the car park is defined by a double row of cobbles/sets embedded in the ground. There are no cobbles or sets across Millers Lane, so the man on the Clapham omnibus would no doubt believe Millers Lane was not part of the car park, and not subject to any parking restrictions.



If a motorist entered the site from the other end of Millers' Lane, (via the Lidl car park), there are no car park signs save for one on the end of the hotel building. The site plan/map shows this to be in a different place, at the corner of the building facing the railway station car park. 

The route straight ahead does not have any markings or double row of sets embedded in the ground to define a car park entrance.
Note also that the parking spaces on the end of the building, and to the right of the hotel access road are bounded by yellow lines, but the "hotel" parking spaces have no end markings at all.
Consequently the man on the Clapham omnibus would have no reason to believe that parking restrictions applied, and that instead the parking spaces immediately in front of the building belonged to the hotel.
Note that the two yellow and blue signs say To Let.



The WS says a pay and display scheme exists on site, but actually there are two separate schemes operated by two separate companies. The paralegal has made no mention of this confusing situation.

Obviously you should ask for the WS to be excluded since it has not been singed as a statement of truth. In the alternative if the judge allows the WS to be included, you should ask for permission to question said paralegal on various aspects of the case. I doubt however they will actually be in attendance.

You should also be given the opportunity permission to question the scamtendant upon her/his written evidence. Point out that it has not been submitted as a statement of truth by the scamtendant.

Since the positions of signs shown in the GSV images do not relate to their positions on the scammer's site plan/map, the positions of any other signs must also be put into doubt.

Fruitcake

I have just noticed that the site plan/map shows that the protected area does not cover the parking spaces adjacent to the front of the hotel. If that is where the car was parked, then by their own admission they do not have the right to mis-manage those spaces and issue parking charges or court claims.

The scamtendant has not taken any images showing where the car was actually parked within the site to prove it was left within the protected area.
This seems to be sharp practice and an attempt to obtain monies by deception.

One of the scamtendant's images show the car parked nose on to a wall adjacent to a bricked up window, and part of a wooden door. 

This same blanked out window and wooden door can clearly be seen just to the left of the white car in this image, underneath the white overhang of the hotel building.
I would therefore suggest the car was parked in one of the spaces immediately adjacent to the hotel which the scammers have shown on their map is not within the protected area, and therefore outside their alleged contract to manage the site. 
The only difference between the google street view image and the one taken by the scamtendant is that the To Let sign is not clear, but it is definitely the same place because the To Let sign can clearly be seen reflected in the car's window.



In addition, The site plan/map has a comment box pointing out that Excel's parking spaces are clearly defined by yellow lines and the wording, Excel Car Park Bays.

the scamtendants images of the car show the ground behind said vehicle are not bounded by end markings at all of any colour. This gives more weight to the fact that the scammers do not have the rights to manage the spaces immediately in front of the hotel along the front face of the building.

This leads to, no contract, and images taken are false instruments because they are outside the controlled area. This is therefore a purely vexatious claim and should be struck out and costs should be requested for unreasonable behaviour. 

Complaints to the DVLA should be made for a DPA/GDPR breach as well as  KADOE breach.
The scammers had no right to obtain keeper data on land where they do not have authority to act, and the DVLA had no right to release the keeper's personal data.

I also wonder why according to the site plan/map, the roof of the building forms part of the protected area, and why the P & D machine is situated on the roof. 

Snakes_Belly

Further to Fruitcake's posts I was parked at the front of the Hotel and I approached the car park by taking the second turn off Miller's lane. There are no signs on Millers Lane either for the Excel car park or the Lower Station Car park. 

At the front of the hotel are Excel spaces and spaces reserved for the other business's that are in the car park. These are, a sandwich shop, micro brewery, pub, taxi firm and various workshops.  Many of these business's have their own signs and deliveries take place during the day. 

At the back of the hotel (railway line side) there are some spaces that are controlled by Excel and the rest of the car park is the Lower Station Car Park. The Excel spaces are marked in yellow and the Lower Station spaces are in white. There is no demarcation and some of the Excel spaces and the Lower Station spaces are in the same row. The yellow paint has now faded making it very difficult to differentiate between to the two.

 This would have not impacted on the OP (assuming that they were parked at the front) unless they were having difficulty finding a ticket machine as the car park is very ambiguous. It did impact on the lady from Burton and I hope that she comes onto this forum for help. 

With regard to the OP. The situation with visitors to the Travelodge is that they are allowed to park for a period of time 18.00 pm to 8.00 am free with a permit from the Travelodge. From 8.00 am to 18.00 pm they have to obtain a ticket.  Many fall foul of this. It would not be unreasonable for a visitor to check in first to obtain a permit before going back to their car especially if they were not aware of the car parking terms and condition.

The signage is terrible. It may be that they were not able to place signage on the building as it is listed.  There is no signage by the ticket machine near the fire door. Fire door is often open thus making it impossible to see the ticket machine. If the OP has entered by the front entrance they would be unlikely to see this machine. It's all ticket machine no ANPR. Cash, Ringo or Permit. If they were parked at the front of the Hotel and had entered by the second turning off Millers lane they would not have seen a ticket machine or any signage at all. It would have not been unreasonable therefore to enquire at  the reception desk first. 

There have been comments on Tripadvisor suggesting an element of entrapment.

Regarding the lease. There is a lease however who the original landowners were is confusing as Travelodge sold off some of their hotels and this was one of them. In the sale the lease with Excel was offered as separate from the Travelodge business. 

Snakes_Belly

"I also wonder why according to the site plan/map, the roof of the building forms part of the protected area, and why the P & D machine is situated on the roof.  "

It's the machine by the fire door. There is no signage over it. (I have images). It's between two blue bins in the same corporate colour as the Travelodge. Sometimes the fire door is open and there are people outside having a cigarette break. When the fire door is open you can't see the machine. Also when they are having deliveries you can't see the machine.

Snakes_Belly

Details of Travelodge sale of lease.

Snakes_Belly

The ticket machine that looks as if it is on the roof on Excel's plan is by the fire door. See the image below. The ticket machine has no signage and is next to a blue rubbish bin of similar colour. When the fire door is open you cannot see the ticket machine. 

I think that there is a disabled space near the fire door which would also make it difficult to see the ticket machine.  

So from the time of entering the car park the OP will not have seen any signage or indication that this is a pay and display car park.