Backcester Lane, Lichfield, Excel Parking

Coupon-mad

Wycombe Council were banned by the DVLA for a while.

Snakes_Belly

Half_way said:

Local authority?
wasn't there something about a local authority getting its wrists slapped for using a  PPC in one of its car parks?

The  two car parks belonged to the Three Spires Shopping Centre and were run by the council. Three Spires swiitched to Excel.  In many of the Staffordshire towns there is a number of local authority run car parks which naturally are free to Blue Badge holders. It creates havoc when they change to a PPC which of course are not free to BB holders. 

In these towns where there are Council run car parks and PPC''s the disparity between them in the way they deal with transgressions and the tariffs causes a lot of confusion. Part of the rationale behind the new CoP is to create a much fairer system by leveling up the disparity.

avfcnicolen

I’m currently being pursued by Excel parking after parking displaying my blue badge & believing I brought a ticket. Because I didn’t know if you could park free.  Excel have issued a PCN which I received 3 months later.  The three spires & excel parking didn’t have prior planning permission to put up a ANPR camera or associated signage in the three spire car park. I received a letter last week asking for my financial details from the litigation department. I’m still pursing that I shouldn’t of got the PCN.  As anyone else won there case against Excel Parking.  The stress of this situation is making me very unwell 

D_P_Dance

Please start your oen thread 

avfcnicolen

Hi I’m new to posting threads. I don’t know what you mean by start your own thread!  I believed I was commenting on the posts regarding The Three Spires Car park  backcester lane Lichfield.  I wanted to join in the discussion in hope just one person could offer some hopefully and legit advice 

go-on-then

You will get more help if you start your own thread please.   It isn't possible to comment on 2 cases in one thread. 

avfcnicolen

Ty for the advice
Is Any chance you could guide me with instructions how I start my own thread.  Through an illness I can experience cognitive impairment. And the stress of this situation hasn’t helped my health at all 

Stefano123

Hi Folks I'd be really grateful if you could have a look at my defence! Thanks!

1.         The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

 

2.         The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

The facts as known to the Defendant

3.         It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the hirer of vehicle registration mark XXXX, which is the subject of these proceedings, and not the registered keeper/ driver as is alleged by the Claimant in the Particulars of the Claim

 

4.         At the time of the alleged contravention, during the middle of a national lockdown, the Claimants had been operators at this site for less than 8 weeks. The date of the alleged contravention was the first visit time the Defendant had visited the site since the change of operators from the local authority to the Claimants and thus was completely unaware the parking operator, method of payment and parking contract at this site had changed. Moreover, there is completely insufficient signage in place at the entrance to the car park, and indeed around the carpark, other than inadequate signage crammed in a dimly lit corner, to warn site users that systems of payment and systems of surveillance have changed or indeed whether any rules or contracts apply in the first instance. This lack of signage means the “landholder [cannot prove] a contract to park existed between the driver and the landholder” (POFA 2012, 6.3).

4.         It is admitted that on XXXXX the Defendant's vehicle spent 18 minutes at Three Spires Shopping Centre Short Stay Car Park; however, it is denied that any parking event occurred nor was a contract entered into given the Claimants system’s failed and thus made the formation of a contract overly complicated. Payment was attempted via the ticketing machine by the Defendant, as well as the online service, but Excel’s systems failed in both instances to accept payment. Therefore, the entirety of the time spent on site was spent attempting to make payment.

 

4.1       At 13:05 as per XXXXX bank’s systems a transaction event occurred at Three Spires Shopping Centre Short Stay Car Park’s ticketing machine, which was initiated by Apple Pay; however, the transaction was declined at 13:08. There is evidently a known fault, or was a known fault, with the ticketing machine as numerous complaints are being made about it on: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.excelparkingservices.co.uk. 

 

4.2       An attempt was then made to pay via the online system, via a smartphone, which requires user engage in a lengthy process of filling out information, which is increasingly time-consuming and fiddly on a small screen. The website however froze and would not let the user through to the final payment stage despite 4 or 5 separate attempts. Each new attempt required ALL the information be entered again and took the driver considerable time. Given the driver had no cash, all available options of payment were exhausted. At this point, having tried numerous options the driver left the carpark to park elsewhere. To this end, no parking event ever occurred and no contract was entered into thus the ““landholder [cannot prove] a contract to park existed between the driver and the landholder” (POFA 2012, 6.3).

5.         It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

5.1.      The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA").

5.2.      Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

5.2.1.   there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

5.2.2.   that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the hirer. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3.      To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumptions exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the hirer is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the hirer is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

1505grandad

"The date of the alleged contravention was the first visit time the (Defendant) had visited the site since the change of operators from the local authority to the Claimants and thus was completely unaware the parking operator, method of payment and parking contract at this site had changed."

Should this be (driver)?  

Check that there are no similar statements.

However I think the experts will be along and perhaps say that most of the above is for the WS.

Stefano123

1505grandad said:

"The date of the alleged contravention was the first visit time the (Defendant) had visited the site since the change of operators from the local authority to the Claimants and thus was completely unaware the parking operator, method of payment and parking contract at this site had changed."

Should this be (driver)?  

Check that there are no similar statements.

However I think the experts will be along and perhaps say that most of the above is for the WS.

The defendant waspresent on the day but was not the driver of the vehicle. Perfectly permissible in a multi-seater vehicle?