Excel claim - defence advice

Snakes_Belly

The image below is taken before Excel managed the car park. You can see where the ticket machine would be sited and that the fire doors open outwards and that is the smokers corner.  
 

Coupon-mad

Before Excel infested the car park.  I've never seen them 'manage' one.

Snakes_Belly

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC350635/charges
There is an outstanding charge on the Travelodge so they must be the landowners.

Troubled42

Good to see so much feedback and it has nearly been a week now of spending most evenings on this...
One very important development is that we fully scoured the Claimants witness statements again (i only have pictures and not the physical copies sent by my relative) and frustratingly the signature of the Claimant is on the next page. (I have attached this into the imgur bundle)

We do very much apologise for taking everyone down the rabbit hole on this one and we wish we saw this a little sooner.....
Nevermind. To be perfectly honest we'd be gutted to spend so much effort on the defence case to have it struck out within the first 2 minutes anyway.... ha... (we are hoping for the first 5 minutes as abuse of process ) 
Crib sheet updated. Glad this was picked up now otherwise we'd be looking rather sheepish to start!

The main additions are clarity of where the vehicle was parked and the Claimants own area/map showing the vehicle was parked outside their protected area which raises quite a dispute.
We have added additional points from Fruitcake, Snakes Belly & CM, as well as a few more exhibits.

Note that one point references the car park sign which shows the day rates - it was assumed in this thread I think that this sign is not present in the car park but it actually is... but on the rear, near the train station, no where near where we would see it. I have made reference to this in point 23 in WS.

Due to the amount of edits, all changes today are now highlighted in blue. red was yesterday.
We hope the terminology in the WS is okay and that most of the points added have value.
In regards to response does 14 days refer to 14 calendar days, not working days?

Thank you all for the continued support and feedback.

KeithP

Troubled42 said:

In regards to response does 14 days refer to 14 calendar days, not working days?

Fourteen days is err... fourteen days, unless it is qualified in some way.

Hint: it is not qualified in any way, is it?

Coupon-mad

In regards to response does 14 days refer to 14 calendar days, not working days?

I wish people would stop asking that.  We'd be rich if we had a tenner for every time. It doesn't even need asking!  Sorry but this forum is like Groundhog day...

One very important development is that we fully scoured the Claimants witness statements again (i only have pictures and not the physical copies sent by my relative) and frustratingly the signature of the Claimant is on the next page. (I have attached this into the imgur bundle)

It's not a rabbit hole!  She hasn't signed under the statement of truth - and it's the old statement of truth.  That's a separate page with what looks like a facsimile signature, that could be appended to anything.  It is certainly worth raising - why would a paralegal get the statement of truth wrong and supply an undated 'template signature final page' that looks to be in a smaller font than the WS (might be the scan - check?).  

Fruitcake

With regards to the sign showing the day rates, it is a stock image and not actually the one at the site.
The paralegal cannot possibly know whether the sign is in the car park or not. I would not mention that there is such a sign, I would just say that it is a stock image, the claimant has not provided any proof that it actually exists, and the paralegal cannot know whether it is or isn't on site.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

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. 

I have just come to the same conclusion; none of the warden's photos show any Excel yellow markings or more importantly the words, "Excel Car Park Bays". The Claimant's WS tells us that these are "clearly defined" although, their own warden somehow missed them!

Taking of the "warden", I see there's no WS from them.

Umkomaas

Just a quick observation following a skim through the first few pages of the 43 of your WS. 

The payment to TravelLodge showing on the credit card statement was made on 07/11/19, the purchased parking ticket relates to 09/11/19 - 10/11/19. Was the cc payment made in advance of the stay, in which case, that clears up my puzzling. 

Troubled42

Fruitcake said:

With regards to the sign showing the day rates, it is a stock image and not actually the one at the site.
The paralegal cannot possibly know whether the sign is in the car park or not. I would not mention that there is such a sign, I would just say that it is a stock image, the claimant has not provided any proof that it actually exists, and the paralegal cannot know whether it is or isn't on site.

Right, I see what you mean now, given that they attached all the other pictures of their crap signs but left out the one which was 'potentially' the most helpful due to its size.  In comparison its interesting to note on the google street video at the rear, the part where it refers to travelodge free parking is smeared out in blue on the sign...
Anyway, this will be amended now.


i.e ;

23. Under the Claimants exhibit YC1, There is a parking sign which shows not just the hourly rate but the daily rate. This sign is not located in the car park at all. The Claimant has provided pictures of other poor signage around the car park but hasn’t provided a picture of this potentially larger sign which could’ve helped customers in the car park. This makes the stock image a false instrument in a document signed as a statement of truth.

@ CM - Sorry, it felt like we talked about it for two pages when it could've potentially been false, thats why I said rabbit hole. However, I have reinstated that there will be a preliminary concern to raise with the judge right at the start in relation to the signature not being with the OUTDATED statement of truth.
Once our relative is back home from work today they will be checking the signature to verify whether or not it is indeed just a copied signature.
I should not have asked about the 14 day saga - I'd like to think I've been round the block on these forums a little and should know better, really. Although everyone has been helping, it can't all be spoon-fed, can it? You live and learn.

@ Snakes - I could understand the P&D machine being harder to see if it was hidden on the other side of the firedoors when open but its infront of it upon your walk to the travelodge reception door. Either way nobody saw it at the time anyway. by the looks of the scamtendant images it looked a miserable november day!

Umkomaas said:

Just a quick observation following a skim through the first few pages of the 43 of your WS. 

The payment to TravelLodge showing on the credit card statement was made on 07/11/19, the purchased parking ticket relates to 09/11/19 - 10/11/19. Was the cc payment made in advance of the stay, in which case, that clears up my puzzling. 

Yes indeed, the payment was made a few days before the stay. We are still trying to find the actual travelodge confirmation email of booking to tidy this up but it appears to have been deleted. They have emailed travelodge to provide a copy of it.
It is also worth mentioning that a ticket was purchased for 24hrs, further adding weight that this was an overnight stay.

There has been a few minor edits, mostly in relation to that Stock image with text in green. We will not doubt make more edits  tonight but there's light at the end of the tunnel.