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

Snakes_Belly

ParkingMad said:

The newspaper article above says that the car park owner is Staghold Ltd.
Here is the charge for Broomhill Shopping Centre from Companies House-

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01864548/charges/rOHuus6N6d02o7NDl9e3UlgF6bs

When Excel send their WS there will be a contract between them and the landowner. In some cases they lease the land and the contracts are internal. Unless you know who the landowner is it is difficult to know whether Excel are the leaseholder or they are just the operator.

You will want to see a up to date contract between Staghold and Excel.. When they supply their WS that contract needs to be examined. They would appear in this case to be the operator. 

GeorgeFormby

Late to the party on this but I love to read and pick errors/discrepancies in the PPC's submissions if I can. Not sure if they're valid but from their Witness Statement dated 7th March which you posted:-

Point 20. Their date of alleged contravention states 21st January 2021!

Point 27. They state they have attached/provided a PDT log dated 21st January 2020. Did they actually supply a PDT log from that date, three years after the event? If so, no wonder your VRM didn't show up on it. I can't see the log anywhere in their evidence.

They can't even get the date right on their point 2 either. Stating the case to be heard in 2021. Laughable.

Good Luck.

milkybk

GeorgeFormby said:

Late to the party on this but I love to read and pick errors/discrepancies in the PPC's submissions if I can. Not sure if they're valid but from their Witness Statement dated 7th March which you posted:-

Point 20. Their date of alleged contravention states 21st January 2021!

Point 27. They state they have attached/provided a PDT log dated 21st January 2020. Did they actually supply a PDT log from that date, three years after the event? If so, no wonder your VRM didn't show up on it. I can't see the log anywhere in their evidence.

They can't even get the date right on their point 2 either. Stating the case to be heard in 2021. Laughable.

Good Luck.

Ha, yes I know, it's shoddy work all round from them! The alleged event was in 2017, they supplied PDT logs for then for this Claim hearing but refused to supply them through my original appeal and the set aside hearing (which I won). But you're correct, their dates are all incorrect, literally everywhere.

I always wonder, is it not just best to not point this out and then bring it up at the trial? You don't want to give them a chance to correct it, I'd rather be able to point it out to the Judge on the day of the trial.

milkybk

Snakes_Belly said:

WS supports and develops the defence arguments with images and evidence etc.  Images are very useful as its varying the delivery and your video will help illustrate your defence points.

Skeleton drills down to the crux of the defence argument. 

Defence is probably the most important document. Judges have very little reading time so may appreciate a skeleton. 

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The defence I can't alter, as it was submitted earlier than the WS as the set aside Judge requested me to submit it within 14 days of her set aside Judgement. But I still covers all the major bases, people here helped me put it together and refine it. 

The WS didn't come until later simply because Excel didn't file for so long, so had 0 idea if I trial was going ahead or not.

milkybk

Snakes_Belly said:

ParkingMad said:

The newspaper article above says that the car park owner is Staghold Ltd.
Here is the charge for Broomhill Shopping Centre from Companies House-

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01864548/charges/rOHuus6N6d02o7NDl9e3UlgF6bs

When Excel send their WS there will be a contract between them and the landowner. In some cases they lease the land and the contracts are internal. Unless you know who the landowner is it is difficult to know whether Excel are the leaseholder or they are just the operator.

You will want to see a up to date contract between Staghold and Excel.. When they supply their WS that contract needs to be examined. They would appear in this case to be the operator. 

Yes, this is what they sent with their WS:

B789

But that is NOT a contract. It is someone from Excel stating that they, Excel, are leasing the land. Anybody can throw together a document and state what they want. Reminds me of the old Buckingham palace parking contract... anyone can draw up some terms and stick a sign in the ground.

They must show the contract, not just say they have one. Put them to strict proof they have a contract.

patient_dream

Correct they only lease the site and will pay money to do so hence they are keen to issue tickets.

They lease it from a landlord/landowner and the lease will say what they allowed to do. As such, they will need to show a court what the lease says.

It is amusing that Excel claim they are members of the IPC, an accredited ATA.   Even Excel know the IPC is a scam started by the Gladstones bunch
They were appointed by government at the time who were clueless about scammers .... government are still in lala land

The sign by the ramp saying read the signs which are stuck on the wall to left ..... NOBODY would stop to read them or even see them 
If a Judge drove into this car park, would he/she stop to read hidden signs on the left .... 

And the name on the letter ????   
DID A CHILD WRITE THIS ??

No doubt that ex Captain Claimpit will be happy to further explain such rubbish

Fruitcake

It is reasonable to assume that if Excel had a contract/lease with the landowner then they would produce it. Since no such proof that the claimant has a right to issue court claims has been produced then it reasonable for the man on the Clapham omnibus to believe that no such contract/lease exists or existed at the material time.
In addition, the claimant is put to strict proof that they still have a licence from the landowner to issue court claims after the end of the alleged lease period.

The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Contracts must be signed by both parties in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 Section 43 and documents must be validly executed in accordance with Section 44.


The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is against the addition of debt collection charges, as are the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012.#In addition, Debt collection companies offer a no-win no-fee service. The claimant is put to strict proof by the production of bank transfer documents and receipts that they actually paid a debt collection company.

Snakes_Belly

Short particulars

Fixed charge the properties at broomhill shopping centre sheffield 25-49 jackson street and 1-11 high street west gateshead old brewery court, sandyford road, normond newcastle, upon tyne 32/34 catford broadway at 38/39 winslade way (see form 395 for further details). Fixed and floating charges over the undertaking and all property and assets present and future including goodwill bookdebts uncalled capital buildings fixtures fixed plant and machinery.

According to the charge the landowner needs permission from the lender before they can lease out land and premises that is subject to the charge.

The lease must be evidenced.

I did suspect that Excel would produce one of those cobbled up contracts.

milkybk

B789 said:

But that is NOT a contract. It is someone from Excel stating that they, Excel, are leasing the land. Anybody can throw together a document and state what they want. Reminds me of the old Buckingham palace parking contract... anyone can draw up some terms and stick a sign in the ground.

They must show the contract, not just say they have one. Put them to strict proof they have a contract.

Agreed, I just wanted to post what they had sent in case anyone hadn't seen their WS, as the thread is pretty long now! I appreciate your input and agree, especially after reading more about it, along with yours and others help. Obviously it doesn't surprise me that Excel may not be acting in a legal manor.

I am sure Mr Jake Burgess (Excel Litigation Team) would claim that the Defendant requesting "strict proof"  for anything was preposterous, that's what he thought las time we spoke via email haha.

patient_dream said:

Correct they only lease the site and will pay money to do so hence they are keen to issue tickets.

They lease it from a landlord/landowner and the lease will say what they allowed to do. As such, they will need to show a court what the lease says.

It is amusing that Excel claim they are members of the IPC, an accredited ATA.   Even Excel know the IPC is a scam started by the Gladstones bunch
They were appointed by government at the time who were clueless about scammers .... government are still in lala land

The sign by the ramp saying read the signs which are stuck on the wall to left ..... NOBODY would stop to read them or even see them 
If a Judge drove into this car park, would he/she stop to read hidden signs on the left .... 

And the name on the letter ????   
DID A CHILD WRITE THIS ??

No doubt that ex Captain Claimpit will be happy to further explain such rubbish

Thanks for your comment  . Yes, honestly I didn't expect too much from Excel but I was shocked at just how poor the WS was. The dates etc being wrong is one thing but the format of their evidence was even worse than expected. As previously mentioned, I feel like bringing this up on the court date may be the most effective way of dealing with this. It's an easy (and honest) shot at their credibility than any Judge will agree with I imagine.

Fruitcake said:

It is reasonable to assume that if Excel had a contract/lease with the landowner then they would produce it. Since no such proof that the claimant has a right to issue court claims has been produced then it reasonable for the man on the Clapham omnibus to believe that no such contract/lease exists or existed at the material time.
In addition, the claimant is put to strict proof that they still have a licence from the landowner to issue court claims after the end of the alleged lease period.

The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

Contracts must be signed by both parties in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 Section 43 and documents must be validly executed in accordance with Section 44.


The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis is against the addition of debt collection charges, as are the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012.#In addition, Debt collection companies offer a no-win no-fee service. The claimant is put to strict proof by the production of bank transfer documents and receipts that they actually paid a debt collection company.

Thanks for your continued support and posts . It's been an interesting experience learning to defend myself for the Set Aside and now for this next hearing. I'm not legally minded, so the help has been greatly appreciated. 

With regards to strict proof etc, would this be best submitted as a part of my supplementary WS? I assume the Claimant has to be given a chance to produce said documents before the trial. Whereas my Skeleton Argument can be submitted nearer to the date.

Snakes_Belly said:

Short particulars

Fixed charge the properties at broomhill shopping centre sheffield 25-49 jackson street and 1-11 high street west gateshead old brewery court, sandyford road, normond newcastle, upon tyne 32/34 catford broadway at 38/39 winslade way (see form 395 for further details). Fixed and floating charges over the undertaking and all property and assets present and future including goodwill bookdebts uncalled capital buildings fixtures fixed plant and machinery.

According to the charge the landowner needs permission from the lender before they can lease out land and premises that is subject to the charge.

The lease must be evidenced.

I did suspect that Excel would produce one of those cobbled up contracts.

Thanks for the info. I agree with you last point, if they had the document they would present it, there would be no need for them to hide it, as producing it would only strengthen their case.

I have a gut feeling they will discontinue later in the year towards the trial date, regardless, I would like to continue to go for the jugular. Ensuring I'm covered from all angles, assuming that the trial will go ahead.