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

Snakes_Belly

Regarding the landowner it may be an idea to write to the landowner. You could include your video and a copy of the newspaper article. I doubt that they will cancel your PCN however they may think twice when the lease comes up for renewal. 

Excel were recently kicked of a car park near where I live although the new operator is not much of an improvement.

I would also mention if you write to the landlord that the car park is not safe at night as it is poorly lit.  You could also mention that the car park is not safe at night in your WS.  

Fruitcake

milkybk said:

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.

If you have not already asked in your WS for the claimant to produce strict proof that they had/have a contract that permits them to issue court claims, then yes, include it in a SWS.

However, you can challenge anything in Excel's claim and WS at the hearing even if you have not previously mentioned it.

Do use the words, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" as it is a recognised legal term for Jo/Joanne Public.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would — for example, in a civil action for negligence.

It is sometimes referred to as the "Man on the Clapham omnibus test," a test to see what the average person would believe.

milkybk

Snakes_Belly said:

Regarding the landowner it may be an idea to write to the landowner. You could include your video and a copy of the newspaper article. I doubt that they will cancel your PCN however they may think twice when the lease comes up for renewal. 

Excel were recently kicked of a car park near where I live although the new operator is not much of an improvement.

I would also mention if you write to the landlord that the car park is not safe at night as it is poorly lit.  You could also mention that the car park is not safe at night in your WS.  

Thank you! I will do, if it helps another person down the road it's well worth doing. I'm glad someone posted the articles, as I had no idea just how much of an issue Excel were causing.

Fruitcake said:

milkybk said:

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.

If you have not already asked in your WS for the claimant to produce strict proof that they had/have a contract that permits them to issue court claims, then yes, include it in a SWS.

However, you can challenge anything in Excel's claim and WS at the hearing even if you have not previously mentioned it.

Do use the words, "the man on the Clapham omnibus" as it is a recognised legal term for Jo/Joanne Public.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would — for example, in a civil action for negligence.

It is sometimes referred to as the "Man on the Clapham omnibus test," a test to see what the average person would believe.

Awesome, thank you! Will do. Stuff to add to both my SWS and skeleton argument/notes for the day.

In other news, the court contacted me today to confirm that they've received both my electronic and hard copy versions and that all links, videos and USB's etc are working. So all partiers have acknowledged the receipt now. 

Snakes_Belly

Another article which includes Broomhill. 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/call-for-clampdown-to-halt-private-parking-firms-feeding-frenzy-that-is-hurting-sheffield-drivers-4106333?fbclid=IwAR2ifCZUmjovdiYjTPMMYjtqgthprN1ZVXZEn8SzzIn3VcbQEzd2QaQ6UEY

milkybk

Hello everyone! Thought I would drop in and update you all, as my hearing is set for this week.

Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case with MK County Court, nothing is going smoothly. I hadn’t received final confirmation of the hearing date or details to join the cloud hearing still, so I contacted the court. They said they had all my documents etc but hadn’t received my contact details and I was to email them to the following address (which I already did months ago when I first received my letter):

remotehearings.miltonkeynescounty@justice.gov.uk

I tried multiple times and it keeps coming back as failed to send, I even checked it matched the address I sent my set aside contact details to, which it did. Contacted the court again and they said it should be working and it would be resolved soon, however still not working! Hearing is in a few days, so a little bit stressful/frustrating.

I emailed it to the standard enquiries email instead for now but no reply. Will ring the court in the morning…

However other than this, I’m ready and looking forward to getting this whole ordeal other and done with!

KeithP

milkybk said:

I emailed it to the standard enquiries email instead for now but no reply. Will ring the court in the morning…

Presumably using this address from their website...

Apart from that, we do from time to time see that emails sent via Gmail sometimes don't get to justice.gov.uk - especially at weekends.

milkybk

KeithP said:

milkybk said:

I emailed it to the standard enquiries email instead for now but no reply. Will ring the court in the morning…

Presumably using this address from their website...

Apart from that, we do from time to time see that emails sent via Gmail sometimes don't get to justice.gov.uk - especially at weekends.

Hi Keith - Yes, that’s the enquiry email I used. The email I shared was from the letter they sent me. I will try sending again tomorrow morning just in case, I’m using outlook/hotmail (same details as used in set aside hearing).

That’s the email I get back:

milkybk

Tried another account too just in case but didn’t go through either unfortunately.

KeithP

But the word court is missing from that email address.

Coupon-mad

I suspect you've missed out the word 'court' from the email address?  Could be wrong but:

What you showed us doesn't match the (probably standard) ending of their 'enquiries' email address which includes 'countycourt' not just 'county'. So surely all their email addresses end the same?

Let us know how it goes at the hearing, please.

We also need you back this month anyway (please) for the final DLUHC announcement with the Government's long-awaited draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation. 

Whatever the outcome in your case (and we want you to win!) PLEASE take part in the PUBLIC CONSULTATION to push the new law over the line. 

Anticipated 'before Summer recess' in Parliament so don't let the Claimant's rep pretend that the DLUHC Code is dead & buried.  It's not.  It will be resurrected any week now, so everything about the new statutory Code of Practice in your defence/WS is CURRENT and a steer for the Judge.

I'm hoping for useful words and clear analysis about the fake £70 'fee' slapped on top of private PCNs; a systematic attempt to "extort money from motorists" (Minister's words).