Backcester Lane, Lichfield, Excel Parking

Snakes_Belly

There have been a lot of issues with this car park particularly with faulty machines. There are many comments to the petition that I posted. You can use those comments in your WS to evidence that this has happened to a number of people. 

I know from experience that this company is very aggressive in their approach however it is hard to prove harrassment.


 

Snakes_Belly

Three Spires will suffer for bringing in this company. Lichfield has lost all the large players. Marks food store is now outside the town and Debenhams has gone. It is turning into one of those coffee shop towns. The new West Midland's Designer Village has free parking and people will go there. 

avfcnicolen

I don’t mind being a WS if anyone would also offer me WS.
ive just received a letter from Elms Legal this morning for the PCN I got from parking at the three spires 

Coupon-mad

You could certainly be witnesses for each other's cases if it helps.

Stefano123

avfcnicolen said:

I don’t mind being a WS if anyone would also offer me WS.
ive just received a letter from Elms Legal this morning for the PCN I got from parking at the three spires 

Happy to do this.

Stefano123

Redx said:

To be clear , I am saying the following

Do not lie , so be honest and truthful
Know your case , hiding behind POFA and hirer non liability cannot work if you were the driver !
Your case does not revolve around POFA or keeper liability , not if you are the driver
I never said that you would !ose in court , not as a hirer , not even as a driver
I gave you various legal points that could win it for you , none of them rely on POFA !
You are looking for a quick get out using POFA instead of the faulty machines and frustration of contract and grace periods

POFA won't help you if you are hirer and driver , so stick to the real winners , which I mentioned

I don't believe that you found and read the post by Bargepole that I mentioned , because he explained it in clear terms !

You are beating around the bush , a wilting bush that is easily uprooted , so be honest and tell it like it is , you already have told us on here and the legal team at Excel read this forum so will probably have noted your comments.

You have no legal grounds for a counter claim or harassment , but good proper grounds to win , if used

My solicitor friend thinks differently about the counterclaim so will consider it. 

The faulty machine is a best bet so a suitable link to some text of legislation would be really useful. Thanks again,  

Stefano123

Coupon-mad said:

I am not seeing grounds for a counterclaim.  Pursuing a debt they honestly believe is owed and sending LBCs is not harassment.  Unless I am missing something important in your case, I think you'd be wasting a court fee on a CC.

You seem to have omitted all the rest of the template defence, unless it is in your actual draft in full (just checking you have it all)?

In your OP you said this:

 I refuse to pay the 'fine' given I would have happily paid £2 to park should their technology have allowed me to. 

But in your defence you are intent on actually DENYING driving!  Nonono.  Absolutely never lie in a court submission.  

I've included all of the points in the template but what I've posted here is what I've added myself.

RE "denying" driving. I've neither denied nor admitted that. I've responded to what is included in the particulars of the claim. It's not on me to build the case against me. If that isn't accepted then I've included other point to my defence.

3.         It is admitted that the Defendant is the hirer of vehicle registration mark XXXX, which is the subject of these proceedings. However, the Claimant makes no such reference to the Defendant’s actual relationship to the vehicle in question in the Particulars of the Claim and refers only vaguely to the Defendant as “registered keeper/ driver”. Failure to understand the Defendant’s actual relationship to the vehicle before bringing this matter to the attention of the court evidences a lack of due diligence on the part of the Claimant, demarcating the claim as opportunist at best, and entirely undermines any allegation that may be put forth that the registered keeper is in all probability the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant, should be expressly aware that XXXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle, given they corresponded with them in the first instance to issue the PCN on XXXXX.   

Coupon-mad

Stefano123 said:

RE "denying" driving. I've neither denied nor admitted that. I've responded to what is included in the particulars of the claim.

..........

Hi All, I've removed some of the detail from the defence and replaced it in the WS. I've also included a counter claim.

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

Above, you denied being the driver.  I say again - DON'T!  

The faulty machine is a best bet so a suitable link to some text of legislation would be really useful.

There is none.

The parking industry make it up as they go along, and the two competing trade bodies are effectively run by and for the parking firms.  Self regulation has proved an utter farce and this greedy industry has caused CCJs and immense harm to consumers, which is why the Government was forced to step in.

The best you will find is Sir Greg Knight's Hansard quote from his Parking (Code of Practice) Bill in the House of Commons in 2018, where he was of the opinion that if all payment methods are not working then that must be a 'perfect defence'.

You could also cite that Act and the new statutory code coming in this year to regulate the rogue practices of this industry. It's only been published in draft form (Google finds it, published for comments last August) but by the time your hearing happens, it may well be live and you could use it as 'best practice'.

I still don't think the CC has legs.  We rarely see harassment CCs win.  If you want to see examples of two that did, see the threads by @ellaro9 and @Nosy from last year.  Unusual cases.

There was also VCS v Ferguson as reported here last year, search for that.  He got £1500 but it was a case where VCS had the wrong car/wrong person and he constantly told them, so they knew well before filing a claim.

Stefano123

Coupon-mad said:

Stefano123 said:

RE "denying" driving. I've neither denied nor admitted that. I've responded to what is included in the particulars of the claim.

..........

Hi All, I've removed some of the detail from the defence and replaced it in the WS. I've also included a counter claim.

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

Above, you denied being the driver.  I say again - DON'T!  

Oh I amended that since then and went with the above instead.

Coupon-mad

So you've now removed para 5 and all the stuff about the POFA, given you were driving?