Excel Parking Services have taken me to the small claims court

JonnyBravo10

Excellent, thank you for the further support it really is appreciated. I've been working through my WS and currently doing so as we speak. I am about to review the WS of others as you have mentioned to get a feel of how it should look however I have a pretty good version in mind having picked many faults with their WS. And you're right, Excel don't own the land however they have supplied evidence to confirm that they are able to follow this terrible process as the occupier of the site. Again, I believe I have picked up on a fault with their evidence of this also..

nosferatu1001

Whats the fault?

JonnyBravo10

In relation to occupying the site, the claimant has supplied a contract statement of authority naming the site with attachments confirming 5 site names, however none of them match the name provided on the contract statement of authority. Also, they have attached a birds-eye view photograph which again does not name the correct site. (there are names of surrounding buildings supplied but not the site in question)
Whether this makes a difference I'm not sure, however it certainly is not clear to me..

nosferatu1001

So there is a specific site A, they have 5 further names but they are B - F.
Its not clear to me either
SHowing might help.

Snakes_Belly

Excel will try it on. You are not dealing with John Lewis. You have photographic evidence that the ticket was on the dashboard. Fluttering tickets are  looked upon by many judges as a waste of court time. Yours had not even fluttered completely off the dashboard.

You have photographic evidence of the ticket showing on the dashboard  and the ticket. You are in a much better position than I was when I took them on. This is a vexatious claim (a claim that has no merit).  If this goes to court I would ask for costs for unreasonable behaviour as the claim has no merit.

Keep Calm and Carry On took on this company twice.  She won both cases and on the second time she was awarded costs for unreasonable behaviour as she was not parked on their car park. Upstanding was parked with a tyre over onto their car park. They discontinued.

IMHO you would have to be very unlucky to lose this fight.  

Snakes_Belly

Just as a matter of interest. You were parked on an Excel Car Park and have a ticket for an Excel Car park? The reason I ask is that sometimes there are several operators in the same area and no demarcation. 

JonnyBravo10

Yes that's right, Excel have a contract statement of authority to operate on the site, although as I've previously mentioned the development in question is not named exactly the same on their supporting evidence. My main focus is to ensure the judge understands that the ticket was displayed correctly with all details visible though. The PO at the time purposely took the pic at such an angle that the detail is only partly visible. I have since taken exactly the same pics and at different angles so that the judge will see how it would have been clearly visible through the front windscreen as mentioned on the T & C's. I'm working on it all again today, hoping to get the WS and exhibits completed in readiness to post and email. I may also take them to the CC directly.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like just the sort of reasonable and honest defence point that Judges like, IMHO.

nosferatu1001

Agreed, and given you will be able to be questioned by the judge, and there will be no excel witness there who can dispute your contention that the photo they took was deliberately done to obscure the details, you should be onto a winner. 

JonnyBravo10

I hope so.. I've taken photographs of the ticket myself in exactly the same place at was on the day in question and when taken at different angles through the front windscreen it confirms that the detail is as clear as day. The parking attendant looks to have purposefully taken the photo at an acute angle. Their T&C's also claim that the time, date and vehicle registration number should have been clearly displayed however at that time the ticket machine did not provide a facility to enter the VRN therefore that's incorrect. I just hope the Judge agrees..