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

Johnersh

As a suggestion....

When you go into the hearing, you might want to have 2x schedules. One for the costs of the set aside application and associated work (reserved for consideration at the end on the claim) and one for the work defending the claim and of attendance.

Ideally, both would be served on the claimant 24hrs before the hearing. 

milkybk

Johnersh said:

As a suggestion....

When you go into the hearing, you might want to have 2x schedules. One for the costs of the set aside application and associated work (reserved for consideration at the end on the claim) and one for the work defending the claim and of attendance.

Ideally, both would be served on the claimant 24hrs before the hearing. 

Ok, thanks John. Will do. 

I submitted them as a joint one but I'll create 2 separate ones as well.

Do you recommend posting Court documents to the Court rather than dropping them off by hand (in general)?

Fruitcake

Is there any way to check with the court that they have the WS that you dropped off. Failing that, do you have a copy of the process that says you can hand deliver documents but won't get a receipt? 

Fruitcake

milkybk said:

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

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. 

With regards to Excel's WS: -

Para 65 refers to "Liability is agreed to be the sum in accordance with amount stated on the signs," but there is no mention of the £60 debt recovery charge on the signs. (I think) Thornton v Shoe Lane, to which the claimant refers says that additional Ts and Cs cannot be added after the initial contract (as displayed on the signs) has been accepted. Therefore they admit that since the £60 charge was not displayed on the signs that form the parking contract, there is no liability to pay these fake add on charges.

There are no photos of your car, at all. Not entering, nor leaving, nor parked. There is no copy of the NTK with photos. They have failed to prove the vehicle was actually on site at all at the material time.

The only readable sign is a stock image held on a computer. It is not date stamped, nor is there any proof that it is a true representation of the signs present at the site at the material date.
The close-ups of the signs are unreadable and are not date stamped.

The date stamped images were all taken a year before the alleged event and are all unreadable.

There are no contemporary images of signage at the site nor of your vehicle.

There is no evidence of a contract with or flowing from the landowner, merely a statement from an Excel employee saying that, honest guv, there was a contract in place at the material time. The claimant has failed to provide any proof that the landowner has authorised Excel to issue parking charges nor issue court claims.

Umkomaas

There is no evidence of a contract with or flowing from the landowner, merely a statement from an Excel employee saying that, honest guv, there was a contract in place at the material time. The claimant has failed to provide any proof that the landowner has authorised Excel to issue parking charges nor issue court claims.

Occasionally we see landowner 'contracts' signed by 'Alun Cockcroft' of Excel.  These seem to be suggesting that Excel are leaseholders of the land. Excel are known to be more involved than most PPCs in acquiring car parks on a leasehold basis. I'd be a little cautious in suggesting otherwise in this case. Stronger points to chase. 

milkybk

Fruitcake said:

Is there any way to check with the court that they have the WS that you dropped off. Failing that, do you have a copy of the process that says you can hand deliver documents but won't get a receipt? 

I could ring up and check with one on of the senior clerks I imagine, I have the contact details for one who helped during my Set Aside hearing when their systems were all messed up. Will do it today, if not, will post too as precaution. 

Fruitcake said:

milkybk said:

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

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. 

With regards to Excel's WS: -

Para 65 refers to "Liability is agreed to be the sum in accordance with amount stated on the signs," but there is no mention of the £60 debt recovery charge on the signs. (I think) Thornton v Shoe Lane, to which the claimant refers says that additional Ts and Cs cannot be added after the initial contract (as displayed on the signs) has been accepted. Therefore they admit that since the £60 charge was not displayed on the signs that form the parking contract, there is no liability to pay these fake add on charges.

There are no photos of your car, at all. Not entering, nor leaving, nor parked. There is no copy of the NTK with photos. They have failed to prove the vehicle was actually on site at all at the material time.

The only readable sign is a stock image held on a computer. It is not date stamped, nor is there any proof that it is a true representation of the signs present at the site at the material date.
The close-ups of the signs are unreadable and are not date stamped.

The date stamped images were all taken a year before the alleged event and are all unreadable.

There are no contemporary images of signage at the site nor of your vehicle.

There is no evidence of a contract with or flowing from the landowner, merely a statement from an Excel employee saying that, honest guv, there was a contract in place at the material time. The claimant has failed to provide any proof that the landowner has authorised Excel to issue parking charges nor issue court claims.

Thank you very much for your detailed response. Their pack does include the original NTK etc but I didn't include it as I had posted it before in the Set Aside hearing days, nothing new from my defence then or the Defence I submitted for this trial. I apologise if I misled you though, after how much effort you put into your post, apologies, I should have made my post clearer when uploading. Your continued support is much appreciated.

Here is the NTK etc (I have updated the original post too it now has a "part 2" in it) - link

My Defence mentions some of the errors etc in their notices, which they referred back to in their WS blurb. 

This is everything they sent other than the PDT logs we discussed yesterday which have nothing in and everything is redacted from them and then their internal system screenshots showing when they sent letter X etc. Some of the letters were sent to a wrong address, including the CCJ notice etc, which is one of the many reasons it was Set Aside. As they didn't check for updated contact details between Jan 2017 and Sept 2020 when they issued a CCJ.

As you can see I didn't even need to blank out the number plate on all pictures, the quality is that poor. They have an image of a car entering and one of a car leaving, none of a car stationary etc, all done through ANPR. The NTK etc have errors etc on too that I highlighted in my Defence. 

Their entire pack is identical to the one they submitted for the Set Aside hearing, just with a tweaked WS to address my new Defence and the PDT logs (which I proved they refused to give me before the Set Aside and during my appeal process with them, surprise surprise).

Thanks for your continued support.

milkybk

Fruitcake said:

Is there any way to check with the court that they have the WS that you dropped off. Failing that, do you have a copy of the process that says you can hand deliver documents but won't get a receipt? 

So I've just been to the court to ask them about this. They said they don't hand out receipts etc. However what they do (and did do when I dropped it off) is check that all the relevant information is on there. Then a couple of CCTV cameras capture people placing sealed documents into the drop off boxes. If something is found to be missing, they can use the CCTV to prove that person came on the day they said they did etc and that the courts must have lost the documents themselves, therefore allowing them to be re-submitted. Seems a strange way of doing things but that's what the staff on the friend desk said and they were very friendly and helpful tbf.

They said some people post a copy of the documents as well as drop one off. So I may go ahead and do that anyway, as it's only the cost of postage and a binder after all.

Le_Kirk

milkybk said:

Fruitcake said:

Is there any way to check with the court that they have the WS that you dropped off. Failing that, do you have a copy of the process that says you can hand deliver documents but won't get a receipt? 

So I've just been to the court to ask them about this. They said they don't hand out receipts etc. However what they do (and did do when I dropped it off) is check that all the relevant information is on there. Then a couple of CCTV cameras capture people placing sealed documents into the drop off boxes. If something is found to be missing, they can use the CCTV to prove that person came on the day they said they did etc and that the courts must have lost the documents themselves, therefore allowing them to be re-submitted. Seems a strange way of doing things but that's what the staff on the friend desk said and they were very friendly and helpful tbf.

They said some people post a copy of the documents as well as drop one off. So I may go ahead and do that anyway, as it's only the cost of postage and a binder after all.

Strange way indeed, does the CCTV camera have X-ray capabilites?  Who is to know what was in your package when you dropped it in their receptacle?

milkybk

Le_Kirk said:

milkybk said:

Fruitcake said:

Is there any way to check with the court that they have the WS that you dropped off. Failing that, do you have a copy of the process that says you can hand deliver documents but won't get a receipt? 

So I've just been to the court to ask them about this. They said they don't hand out receipts etc. However what they do (and did do when I dropped it off) is check that all the relevant information is on there. Then a couple of CCTV cameras capture people placing sealed documents into the drop off boxes. If something is found to be missing, they can use the CCTV to prove that person came on the day they said they did etc and that the courts must have lost the documents themselves, therefore allowing them to be re-submitted. Seems a strange way of doing things but that's what the staff on the friend desk said and they were very friendly and helpful tbf.

They said some people post a copy of the documents as well as drop one off. So I may go ahead and do that anyway, as it's only the cost of postage and a binder after all.

Strange way indeed, does the CCTV camera have X-ray capabilites?  Who is to know what was in your package when you dropped it in their receptacle?

Yeah I have no idea. It was odd and at MK court it's security staff you speak to, nobody else. I'm going to mail a copy too today just to be safe. I already know that the clerks didn't print everything off for the Set Aside, so want to cover all bases.

Don't know why their email no longer returns an acknowledgment either. I rang and spoke to them about it but they didn't really offer an answer. Seemed like it's supposed to but wasn't working, who knows - very vague, as I say, hence I'm going to mail a recorded signed for copy too.

B789

milkybk said:
I'm going to mail a recorded signed for copy too.

What if the person who "signs" for it just puts an illegible scribble and then dumps your package in a bin somewhere?

Recorded delivery is no guarantee that it will ever get to who it's supposed to. You may as well save yourself the extra expense and just do as everyone here is advised and go to a post office and get a free "proof or posting" cert.

At least then you have proof that you posted something to the court and it is up to them to prove you didn't. Who has the evidence?

Then again, either way does not prove that you actually sent what you claim you sent if they can't find it.