Excel - Set aside WON & CASE WON - Excel defeated AGAIN!

Coupon-mad

Google streetview has old images going back to previous years, when you change the date using the little arrow top left of the location map.  Everyone here uses GSV evidence as it is reliable, independent and dated.

Complaining to your MP and asking them to alert Michael Gove (new MHCLG Secretary of State, Department now renamed DLUHC) is absolutely vital right now!

The new Code of Practice and statutory framework is still in draft form as we know from the (now closed) Government Consultation this Summer, where the MHCLG actually proposed to give PPCs, their DCAs and roboclaim firms carte blanche to charge hundreds of pounds extra for one chaser letter...

...you really could not make it up but the parking industry clearly has been lobbying Government.  The BPA boasted about their lobbying since March and the consultation proposals about 'debt recovery' was extremely alarming and not at all in keeping with the Knight Act.

IMHO, someone hasn't understood that this is NOT a 'penalty' model nor has the MHCLG thought multi ticket cases through and what 'adding £70 under contract' means in terms of harm and huge costs to consumers.  They actually called it a safeguard.  Appalling naivety, sadly.  Not good enough.  MPs cannot accept this and you need to alert yours.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Google streetview has old images going back to previous years, when you change the date using the little arrow top left of the location map.  Everyone here uses GSV evidence as it is reliable, independent and dated.

Complaining to your MP and asking them to alert Michael Gove (new MHCLG Secretary of State, Department now renamed DLUHC) is absolutely vital right now!

The new Code of Practice and statutory framework is still in draft form as we know from the (now closed) Government Consultation this Summer, where the MHCLG actually proposed to give PPCs, their DCAs and roboclaim firms carte blanche to charge hundreds of pounds extra for one chaser letter...

...you really could not make it up but the parking industry clearly has been lobbying Government.  The BPA boasted about their lobbying since March and the consultation proposals about 'debt recovery' was extremely alarming and not at all in keeping with the Knight Act.

IMHO, someone hasn't understood that this is NOT a 'penalty' model nor has the MHCLG thought multi ticket cases through and what 'adding £70 under contract' means in terms of harm and huge costs to consumers.  They actually called it a safeguard.  Appalling naivety, sadly.  Not good enough.  MPs cannot accept this and you need to alert yours.

Okay, will do.

Regarding signage - I've had a look, thanks for the time and date tip. Tbh the photos Excel submitted in their defence look very similar, it's hard to make out exact wording on google obviously. But they don't appear to have been updated in some time. There's one photo in Excel's statement that I can't find so that could be new but it displays the same info as all the others.

Coupon-mad

Try also Googling for MSE and Pepipoo thread results, searching for 'parking ticket' or 'parking fine' and the name of the site.

Someone has probably posted photos years ago on a forum thread.  Do some Google digging.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Try also Googling for MSE and Pepipoo thread results, searching for 'parking ticket' or 'parking fine' and the name of the site.

Someone has probably posted photos years ago on a forum thread.  Do some Google digging.

Will do.

Serious question though:

In my current draft defence, point 3 states:

3.   The Defendant is unable to admit or deny that he was the driver and therefore requires the claimant to prove so. Furthermore upon receiving the aforementioned Notice of Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant, no person was able to identify seeing a Notice to Driver (NTD) affixed to the vehicle in question. 

See last draft of my defence here - link to defence

Therefore am I doing the signs etc just as additional evidence that the parking company is acting in a manor to purposefully defraud customers/innocent people? Does including this information not incriminate me as the driver (which I wasn't)? Or do I use to basically say, "your Honour, I wasn't the driver, however whoever was (remains unidentified) here are the reasons I believe they could easily have not paid/received ticket/machine not been working etc".

Coupon-mad

It's more a POFA point.  A keeper can only potentially be liable for an unidentified driver's breach if the parking firm has FULLY complied with POFA.

Look at Schedule 4, near the start it says as prerequisites that there has to be 'adequate notice ' of the parking charge (signs) and thus the driver can ve deemed to have agreed but breached a 'relevant contract'.

Your evidence should include images of lack of signage, and insurance if you have it from that time that shows another named driver (redact the first name and explain that is to stop the Claimant trying a second speculative claim).

Your evidence should also include the POPLA Annual Report 2015 pages where Henry Greenslade explains keeper liability and that a PPC cannot lawfully presume a registered keeper was the driver.  If that were the case there would have been no need for SCH4 of the POFA!

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

It's more a POFA point.  A keeper can only potentially be liable for an unidentified driver's breach if the parking firm has FULLY complied with POFA.

Look at Schedule 4, near the start it says as prerequisites that there has to be 'adequate notice ' of the parking charge (signs) and thus the driver can ve deemed to have agreed but breached a 'relevant contract'.

Your evidence should include images of lack of signage, and insurance if you have it from that time that shows another named driver (redact the first name and explain that is to stop the Claimant trying a second speculative claim).

Your evidence should also include the POPLA Annual Report 2015 pages where Henry Greenslade explains keeper liability and that a PPC cannot lawfully presume a registered keeper was the driver.  If that were the case there would have been no need for SCH4 of the POFA!

Okay thank you. Will draft this weekend, as always, great help.

milkybk

Changing thread title as it's deserved!

milkybk

So I had a couple thoughts today:

Can I rely on previous statements by e.g. the set aside Judge in my claim defence hearing? Obviously all court proceedings are recorded, so I would be under oath to only use specific things. The reason I ask is the Judge specifically emphasised the fact that she couldn't understand the length of time between a PCN being issued and a CCJ being entered (over 4 years in-between). This point could help bolster my defence, in that it is genuinely impossible for me to either admit or deny liability of being the driver, on a night so long ago where nothing remarkable happened. 

Obviously I largely base my defence on the fact that due to the above statement, the onus is on the Claimant to prove, without doubt, that I was the driver on that night. In my SAR I asked for CCTV recordings etc from the car park on the night of the alleged charge, there isn't any. The only photos are the dark ones of the car with headlights on, where you cannot see the occupants. They also still have not provided PDT receipts, however when I receive their pack (in the next 14 days) maybe it will contain some additional info for the machines, I doubt it though.

My point is, I'm not a lawyer, could the Judge disagree and just as easily say "prove you weren't the driver" to me? I wouldn't be able to place myself on the night, as it was so long ago and wouldn't wish to lie and be in contempt of court (like I proved Excel were) by guessing in a statement. I want to ensure the Claimant is forced to prove the identity of the driver.

I will obviously provide (partially redacted) names of other named drivers, of which there were two. I will also provide partially redacted names of friends who I happily allowed access to the vehicle, as many insurance policies allow.

Furthermore, whilst this is no loner a set aside hearing, should I reiterate the fact that Excel broke the ICP CoP? As I have evidence and also the contradicting statements made by Mr Burgess. Or are those set aside witness statements now null and void? Basically I could use this to construct an argument proving that the Claimant has consistently been deceitful, used breach of terms practice and attempted to mislead the court. Prove a pattern of abusive and deceitful behaviour and then reference the cases about adding excessive charges etc on top of that.

Also, if I prove the Clamant has illegally inflated the charges, can it be thrown out on this too?

milkybk

Sent a letter to Milton Keynes MP's. Decided to not ask for advice on this one, as I wanted it to be in my own words:

Dear Sirs, 

In the most recent elections I voted for your party, the Conservatives. 

Since then I have had to successfully defend myself against a fraudulently and defectively served CCJ (of which I had no knowledge), from a parking company named Excel Parking Services Ltd. These firms continually abuse the CCJ system to hold innocent people at ransom, by crippling their financial records. Governments have known about this for years and do nothing to protect their constituency and the people they serve. Thankfully our Judges and Judicial system do offer us a chance to protect ourselves, unlike our governments. 

In 2016, Theresa May (a member of your party and previous Prime Minister) was quoted as stating:

 “Furthermore, Prime Minister May publicly pledged to investigate ‘abuse’ of the CCJ System and so called ‘Credit Clamping’ as reported in the Daily Mail article dated 12 September 2016. The Right Honourable Sir Oliver Heald on 23 December 2016 "announced a crackdown on unresolved debts which can damage people’s credit ratings without them knowing. The action comes after concerns were raised that companies were issuing claims to consumers using incorrect addresses." The Minister added "It cannot be right that people who are unaware of debts can see their lives and finances ruined by county court judgments. That in the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”

Clearly, as my recent case proves, your party did nothing to address this issue. Adding to a list of policy failures you promise your voters, the very people you stand for and who put you in power. As a member of the Conservative party you are not only responsible for your own actions but also those of your predecessors, including their failures. Your parties incompetence leads to untold misery and financial ruin for many. 

As you may be aware, a group action lawsuit is currently being brought against the DVLA for breach of personal data, something your government has allowed to continue to happen: 

https://kellerlenkner-databreach.co.uk/dvla/ 

Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), personal data can only be processed for “specified, explicit and legitimate” purposes. It also must be kept accurate, up-to-date, and safe. You must also provide your consent for how it can be used.  While the DVLA’s privacy policy states that it may share personal data with private parking companies, Keller Lenkner (and those they defend, of which I am now one) do not believe that this squares with the purpose for which the data was collected in the first place (vehicle registration for taxation, licences, etc). The sale of personal data is also prohibited under UK data protection law.

 Therefore, in response, Keller Lenkner UK is:

• Holding the DVLA to account.
• Helping their clients stop the unlawful processing of their data.
• Seeking compensation for infringements of data protection legislation dating back over six years.

I commend Keller Lenkner for their bravery and fortitude to take on one of our many corrupt systems. Systems you and previous Government’s have sought to protect, through legislation, for your own personal gains. We are fortunate enough to live in a country with the oldest Democracy in the world. Unfortunately modern politicians appear to be doing everything within their power to undermine the  very fabric our nation was built on. My faith in the Conservative party is waning with every passing day. Not only that, my faith in our Democracy as a whole.

Whilst I have successfully defended my set aside hearing and my CCJ has been expunged. I now must go through further legal hearings and litigation to claim my costs back and prove my innocence, against a company committing nothing less than “daylight robbery”. Again, if your party had followed through with it’s promises in 2016 I wouldn’t have been put through this ordeal. The last 2 years have been hard on the whole of the UK and the world. This event has only made that experience worse for me. I hold your party partially responsible for this.

Your lack of action has contributed to months of misery, harassment, bullying and deceitful tactics used against me. I have suffered stress, sleepless nights and lost many hours building defences for something I should never have had to do in the first place.

My confidence in your parties ability to lead this country was already shaken, this event has further exacerbated this fact.

My next court hearing to defend myself is in 14 days. I look forward to receiving a response from you within 7 days.

Yours faithfully,

XXXX

Coupon-mad

Yes you can do all of the above, except that there is no question of 'illegally' issuing charges or getting it thrown out without a hearing.  But yes you can use all of the above at the hearing as long as you now do a defence, new WS and evidence about the defence this time, not the set aside address stuff. 

Sitting on a potential claim can be called 'warehousing' and Judges frown upon it even though there are 6 years to bring a claim.  And no doubt interest has bern added at 8% as some sort of financial reward for sitting on their hands.  You can object to all that.