Letter before claim from ELMS Legal

Motty2014

Half_way said:

do not attempt to identify the driver, never use words such as neighbour, friend, husband, I, he, she, wife, uncle, aunt etc.

You can give the location, where was it?

It was at Bryan House Pay & Display, Wigan.

Thanks for the advice, I am new to all of this! Tried to edit my post but it wont allow me to!

Le_Kirk

Motty2014 said:

Half_way said:

do not attempt to identify the driver, never use words such as neighbour, friend, husband, I, he, she, wife, uncle, aunt etc.
You can give the location, where was it?

It was at Bryan House Pay & Display, Wigan.
Thanks for the advice, I am new to all of this! Tried to edit my post but it wont allow me to!

You won't be able to edit until you have a certain number of posts under your belt.  Given your answer earlier about you being the RK, then the process can be conducted by you in your name.

D_P_Dance

 "The additional £60.00 is a debt recovery charge allowed by our clients trade association, the IPC"

But excel know that the law does not  allow it, read his,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Why not send them a copy,  have you complained to your MP?

Ralph-y

what was the reason you where there ?

Ralph

Snakes_Belly

I would take a look at Daniel's case. It is very similar. The space has all the hallmarks of a parking bay. Are they saying that the driver was over the white line or that they were not in a space? The driver appears to be on the white line but not over it.
 
You can win this easily. Daniel and Chelsea did. 

Motty2014

Snakes_Belly said:

I would take a look at Daniel's case. It is very similar. The space has all the hallmarks of a parking bay. Are they saying that the driver was over the white line or that they were not in a space? The driver appears to be on the white line but not over it.
 
You can win this easily. Daniel and Chelsea did. 

Thanks, on the PCN it says "parked beyond the bay markings". Like you say, the space has all the hallmarks of a parking bay.

With regards to Daniels case, do you have a link? Thanks again

Snakes_Belly

Do they mean that you were not within the white lines or that the driver was not parked in a bay? In Daniel's case they said that it was not a proper parking space. In Keep Calm and Carry On's case they said that she was not in an actual parking space. Judges disagreed in both cases and dismissed the claims.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6072389/private-pcn-excel-parking-we-won/p1

In the Fort Dunlop case the driver was over the line however they were at the end and did not disadvantage another driver. Dismissed with costs for unreasonable behaviour as the rep was a no show. That is a funny case as the judge was left hanging on the telephone while pop music was being played. It's worth a read.
  
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6117334/excel-parking-claim-form-defence-for-review/p1
 
The cases above will cover both scenarios. Daniel did some very good images. 

There is another ongoing case with Excel whereby the lines that mark the bays are fading and this relates to a car park where there are two operators, Excel are suppose to be marked out in yellow but they have faded to white.

You should be able to win this case however it is a lottery. 
       

beamerguy

It is difficult to understand why Elms Legal get involved in the most ridiculous of cases.?
They are now losers and when we read some of their witness statements and court claims, the mind really does boggle ??

Snakes_Belly

Plan A is usually to try and contact the landowner to get the ticket cancelled if you have not done this already.

Looking at the parking space it looks quite small and the white lines demarcating the bays on the whole car park look as if they need repainting. 

A ticket was paid for and no other driver has been disadvantaged. I think that they will struggle. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5487941,-2.6285442,3a,75y,227.97h,81.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s52YQOuhpVhfLb94Z95P8bQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

beamerguy

It is clear, in a past life, these legals were Kamikaze pilots