How do I challenge an Excel Parking fine?

cruise2809

Just received a "General Form of Judgment or Order" from the CCBC. On first glance, it stated that I hadn't completed by DQ which stressed me as I knew I had emailed over. After checking my sent box, I had thankfully on the 1st August. But I just resent it with the attachment of the Crosby case.
However, after reading it again, it states that the Claimant has failed to complete the DQ and not me, the Defendant. The letter states that "If the Claimant does not comply with this order their claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the Court."
Is it normal for these rogue companies to miss deadlines or submit paperwork late because they know their case is flimsy? I also presume that the reason that I have received this letter is that it keeps all parties in the loop so to speak.

Fruitcake

We see the scammers discontinue at the last minute, or fail to pay the hearing fee, or omit one of the steps required by the CPR on a regular basis.
However, don't assume they haven't submitted their DQ as they may have but the (very busy) courts may not have recorded the fact.
Assume it is going ahead unless you get something in writing to the contrary.

Have you submitted your costs assessment already? If not, get ready to do so straight away.

cruise2809

Hi Fruitcake,
Thanks for the heads up. Not submitted me costs assessment yet. Presume this is all on the newbie thread so will have a look at this next stage.
Thanks for the info.

Scrapit

cruise2809 said:

Just to keep you in the loop:
Returned from holiday last night and found 2 letters, both from Excel Parking.
1 seems a fairly standard one stating that they are "willing to accept a reduced settlement charge of £125.00 payable within 14 days from the letter" (3.8.20).
However, another one dated 31.7.20 stated that:
"We can confirm receipt of your standard internet Defence.
We must advise you that the case of Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien (heard with Mr Crosby) has now been set aside by HHJ Parkes.
Therefore your Defence surrounding debt charges is bound to fail."
That last sentence is both threatening and arrogant in the extreme!!!
I hope that I have followed the newbie information correctly in terms of attaching the correct documents in my Defence. It seems a little strange to write twice to confirm that they have received my Defence.

Would it not be nice to reply with some thing along the lines of "yes its standard Internet defence but because they are so successful I didnt see the need to alter it"?  Hypothetically of course.

cruise2809

Dear all,
It's been 6 months since last posted on here but I have finally received a response through my MP from Excel parking to say that they are no longer pursuing my case.
I hadn't heard from them for so long and did actually wonder if they had given up considering my defence and the Covid situation with courts.
However, I just wanted to thank all of you on this thread for your help and advice over the past 12+ months. your guidance and law knowledge has been exceptional and I am so grateful to everyone of us who directed me to threads and links and suggested changes to my defence documents etc.
This just shows that with the right guidance and advice, anyone can fight against an unlawful claim.
I was lucky in the fact that my MP chased and chased correspondence and wouldn't let it go. She sent 2 letters and then one threatening one when she didn't receive a reply and it was then that they contacted her with apologies. Below is an extract from the letter.
"Upon review of this information and the clear mistake that had been made we took the decision to not continue with the claim raised and instead close the matter and not pursue Mr C any further for the PCN. We hope that this decision meets yours and your constituents satisfaction."
Take care all and thank you for help.

Umkomaas

@D_P_Dance - one for your resource library. 😁

Well done @cruise2809 - a rather nasty bit off the bottom of your shoe!

nosferatu1001

Glad it got sorted, hjowever you really should have had something from the court confirming it was struck out!