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

Coupon-mad

The argument in para 26 has already been kicked out on appeal in Excel v Smith.

But you've already sent your WS bundle?

You could send a skeleton argument with Excel v Smith and other case authorities, nearer the time of the hearing.

Is the NTK a POFA-worded one? Rare for Excel...

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

The argument in para 26 has already been kicked out on appeal in Excel v Smith.

But you've already sent your WS bundle?

You could send a skeleton argument with Excel v Smith and other case authorities, nearer the time of the hearing.

Is the NTK a POFA-worded one? Rare for Excel...

Hey - Yes I included Excel v Smith in my WS as you suggested! This is why I think posting their WS will help, as I can make notes on exactly which bits to refer to in my own WS when they're bringing up points in theirs, exactly like this one. Thanks for your help as always.

NTK was not POFA worded no, the errors etc are highlighted in my defence which I will upload too. 

B789

Did you order cots in the event of a last-minute bailout by the claimant? It would be a shame if all your hard work on this one was 'for nought'.

Coupon-mad

Pretty terrible - and serious - when a Claimant says under fear of contempt of court that a non-compliant NTK was POFA compliant.

milkybk

B789 said:

Did you order cots in the event of a last-minute bailout by the claimant? It would be a shame if all your hard work on this one was 'for nought'.

Hi - The original Judge from the Set Aside reserved costs for after the Claim hearing as I had a "right and reasonable chance of defending the claim" - Paraphrasing as it's been a few years. I have the letter stored safely.

Coupon-mad said:

Pretty terrible - and serious - when a Claimant says under fear of contempt of court that a non-compliant NTK was POFA compliant.

Yes, quite, I feel the same way. I imagine in contributed to the Judge's swift decision during my set aside case. As she was thoroughly unimpressed with everything Excel put forward.

milkybk

Ok, below is a link to my redacted defence submitted in 2021 after winning the Set Aside, I had to submit it within 14 days of the Judgement to Set Aside along with my N180, which I did.

The other link is to Excel's WS for the upcoming hearing. I believe I have redacted everything necessary but if anyone spots something please shout and I'll quickly remove and edit. They included my Defence in there, so you'll have to skip over it. It's a scanned copy I'm uploading but the images etc are genuinely that bad too on the original copy they sent me, it's embarrassing tbh.

My Defence - link

Excel Claim WS & Evidence - link

Excel Claim NTK etc Evidence - link

For Excel's Evidence I haven't included the internal screenshots they have of when they sent X letter etc, as I would literally have to redact the whole page (my personal info on everything). It's all stuff they used in the Set Aside hearing anyway. 

The PDT logs they mentioned were not sent as claimed and were not shown in court for the Set Aside - At least I never saw them presented etc or even mentioned.

When I received this WS pack in 2023 is the first time I have seen PDT logs, as backed up by emails used as exhibits in my own WS. 

Coupon-mad

Did you know that it was reported that two Judges held it likely that Excel had altered PDT machine logs, in Excel v Ambler?

Not_A_Hope

I think they might have shot themselves in the foot by providing photos of those unreadable signs. The judge needs to imagine how difficult they are to read at night.

I wonder why they have included a ‘Leaseholder Witness Statement’ rather than an actual copy of their lease for this site? In my mind it doesn’t actually prove anything especially when the private parking industry is full of rogues and vagabonds.

milkybk

Coupon-mad said:

Did you know that it was reported that two Judges held it likely that Excel had altered PDT machine logs, in Excel v Ambler?

Interesting, no I didn't, I'm not surprised though. Thanks for the the info.

Not_A_Hope said:

I think they might have shot themselves in the foot by providing photos of those unreadable signs. The judge needs to imagine how difficult they are to read at night.

I wonder why they have included a ‘Leaseholder Witness Statement’ rather than an actual copy of their lease for this site? In my mind it doesn’t actually prove anything especially when the private parking industry is full of rogues and vagabonds.

Yeah I'm not sure, they did the same at the Set Aside hearing. They genuinely lost an identical case in the same car park, at the same time of night, in the same conditions against another poster on here in 2019. Which means they didn't make any light improvements since 2017, again made no improvements after the 2019 case defeat and still haven't now!

I wanted to append the Judgement from the poster on here's victory from 2019 but unfortunately he didn't reply to my messages. Felt like it would have been the final nail in the coffin, would be a nice exhibit. 

milkybk

I have one last question, probably a silly one. I dropped off my WS etc to the court by hand, they have a place in MK Court where you just drop your pack into but you don't get a receipt etc and their emails no-longer send back confirmations (I checked they got the email, they did). Should I also post a signed for copy to the Court? Just for the receipt etc? 

Normally I wouldn't ask but at the set aside the Judge wasn't given all my info, thankfully didn't matter then. Certain exhibits etc were missing, for example.