2x Separate Court Claims from Excel

Snakes_Belly

"a list of payments made via Ringo which misses out the payments made around the date of the second incident, for which I have a receipts."

Shades of the Ambler case. Excel have form in presenting dodgy evidence. 

nosferatu1001

Yep - you can point out their "evidence" appears to have been tampered with, because it omits payments on x, y, z dates that you have receipts for.
I would also bring to the courts attention the Court of Appeal ruling, from memory, about redactions being made unilaterally. It not being allowed, in essence!

nosferatu1001

Oh and ensure your evidence of their tampering - those reciepts - is part of your WS. If needed, as Im  not checking, send in a supplementary WS if you have already filed your first WS

Snakes_Belly

Lamilad was representing the defendant in this case. Costs for unreasonable behaviour were awarded and Excel requested permission to appeal against the decision. This appeal was refused by HH Judge Gosnell.  This case could prove useful especially as a higher court judge has refused the appeal which is supporting the District Judge's decision and has more influence. If Excel have tampered with the evidence in your case then they could be in for costs for unreasonable behaviour.

George_W12

Thanks again for the help.
My draft witness statement is attached, any feedback gratefully received.
I've referenced the unhelpful witness statement, the site information and incomplete transaction list. I stopped short of directly accusing them of evidence tampering as the transaction list they provided was related to my appeal of the first case (which was struck out).

George_W12

Just noticed that page 34 of their WS quotes several excerpts from the terms and conditions that they say are on the signs, but almost none of it is actually on the signs according the their site information pack (only the first paragraph). So I still don't really know what contract they're trying to enforce...

Le_Kirk

George_W12 said:

Just noticed that page 34 of their WS quotes several excerpts from the terms and conditions that they say are on the signs, but almost none of it is actually on the signs according the their site information pack (only the first paragraph). So I still don't really know what contract they're trying to enforce...

Anything that is in their WS and is untrue should be refuted and pointed out in your WS - if it helps you!

George_W12

Had the hearing today. 

Mixed result, the judge found for the claimant but knocked off the £60 and the amount I paid on the day of £5.40. So £144.60 including fees (the other claim was struck out as they didn’t receive a DQ from the claimant).
He wasn’t convinced about the signage issues etc as I’d used the car park before so deemed it my mistake. He accepted I’d paid but it was long after I parked so I was bound by the contract. 

Nor did he seem interested in my points around the various CRA points and the claim being tainted by abuse of process.

All in all an ok result but very hard fought, I’ll decide in a few days if I think it was all worth it!

Le_Kirk

Don't forget to pay!  As you say mixed result - tough on you.  The CRA points and the Abuse of Process was never a defence argument and it did its job in getting the spurious £60 knocked off.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't sound too awful - given there were 2 claims in play - and you certainly cost Excel a LOT more than this.

But didn't the Judge think Excel were responsible for providing a webpage payment system that worked well and quickly?

I had trouble initially as I kept getting an error from the website - a blank screen after the payment screen. I wasn’t sure if it had through but when I checked with my bank there was no record of the authorisation, so tried again and the payment was successful. I presume the ticket was issued in the intervening time. This issue re-occurred a few times over that period hence two tickets. 

Their payment system failed you.  Seems odd that you were then liable due to not managing to pay quickly one day, due to their glitch.  Or was the webpage not Excel's agent?