County Court Business Centre - Excel Parking

HWOOD17

Hi,

Was wondering if anyone would be able to provide some advice please?  PCN was left on car in January 2016 for parking outside a marked bay.  Car next to bay had slightly encroached into bay, so same was done.  Hard to remember full details, but after a number of fruitless attempts asking them to clarify why they were charging such an extortionate amount for a £3 all day car park, someone from their company was spoken to on the phone.  Shortly after this call in 2016, an email was received from Excel Parking saying that the case had been 'put on hold'.  No further communication has been received saying the case had now been taken off hold, just the occasional threatening letter from various 'legal' companies asking for £160, which were ignored (DCB Legal are named on the Claim Form, though there have been letters from others).

Last month, however, a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre was received with an issue date of 13/08.  Although the letter heading etc. on the form looks decidedly dodgy, did suspect it was something that could not be ignored so began referencing some of the excellent and informative posts on this thread.  Have found the Newbies thread very helpful and AoS was submitted on 20th August, with it saying on the website that it was received on 23rd August.  

Particulars of Claim on Claim Form are:

1. The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle ........

2.The PCN details are 18/01/2016

3. The PCN was issued on private land owned or managed by C.  The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract) thus incurring the PCN.

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.  D is liable as the driver or keeper.  Despite requests, the PCN is outstanding.  The contract entitles C to damages.  

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £160 being the total of the PCN and damages

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner patient.

3. Costs and court fees

The amount claimed is £203.91, with a court fee of £35.00 and legal representative's costs of £50.00, so a total of £288.91. 


There has been a thought about paying it and saving the hassle, but these outfits really are a disgrace, so would rather not give them a penny if there is a chance of not having to.  

Have got got to the stage of preparing a defence, but there is a little uncertainty of how to complete points 2 and 3.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  

Redx

Until we see your proposed 2 & 3 , nobody will comment , so do them both and post your draft below ( 90% of it is already done ) , so we need to see your proposals first

No point in paying it , they added unlawful amounts , a typical loss is about £200 , not £289

KeithP

HWOOD17 said:

Last month a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre was received with an issue date of 13/08. 
Have found the Newbies thread very helpful and AoS was submitted on 20th August, with it saying on the website that it was received on 23rd August.  

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 15th September 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

D_P_Dance

They have added an unlawful £60, read this

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Also read this, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Many judges regard these claims as a waste if coutrt time.

HWOOD17

Would like to thank everyone for the above responses.  Would also like to take the time to thank the people who have provided such extensive information on an area which I, along with many others I'm sure, would feel pretty helpless without.  

I have studied the defence compiled in the second post of the Newbies thread and as advised, don't intend to make any changes apart from points 2 & 3.  I have drafted those points below and would be very grateful if advice could please be provided:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  

3.  On the Notice to Keeper, dated 25th February 2016, the Claimant states that "The terms and conditions to which the Driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout".  This was not the case, as the sign at the entrance of the car park had no information regarding terms and conditions and it is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage could create a legally binding contract.

As I said in the original post, this was over five and half years ago and although I did take the time back then to go and look at the signage in the car park after receiving the NTK and took photographs, I have changed phones a couple of times during that period and am struggling to locate them at the moment.  I also did speak to someone at Excel Parking back in 2016 and shortly after that conversation, I received an email saying my case was on hold and I've never received any communication from them since saying that was no longer the case.  I have sent off a SAR to Excel Parking as I can't locate the email, though I will try and retrieve that as well.      

Redx

Try GSV for historical pictures too

Any signage pictures and maps will be in their WS bundle you will receive in several months time

HWOOD17

Redx said:

Try GSV for historical pictures too

Any signage pictures and maps will be in their WS bundle you will receive in several months time

Thanks for reply.  How do points 2 and 3 look at this point please?  Just conscious of putting something in there or missing something out that might count against me. 

Have read a post today that is very similar to my case, do will pad point 3 out a bit using that example if required.

Redx

2 is ok if you are using a keeper and driver defence , meaning that you are not relying on POFA at all ( which is down to if Excel definitely know who was driving ) , sometimes a driver defence is better because they are a first hand witness , the only one thre on the day

As for 3 , expand it concisely if it assists your case , use any other case to improve your own case , but no war and peace tomes in your Defence , keep it concise and to the point

HWOOD17

Thank you again for the reply.  Excel do not know the identity of the driver at this point as it has never been established with them.  Identity of driver is known even though not been shared with Excel, but noted that it does say in thread #2 that keeper / driver defence should be used if identity is known.  Fine with that, but just trying to establish best approach at this point. 

Have altered point 3 to now read:

3. On the Notice to Keeper, dated 25th February 2016, the Claimant states that "The terms and conditions to which the Driver agrees to be contractually bound upon entering the car park are clearly placed at the entrance to the car park and in prominent places throughout". This is refuted by the Defendant, as the sign at the entrance of the car park had no information regarding terms and conditions and the font size of the terms and conditions on other signage within the car par were too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read them would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

HWOOD17

To add to above - I've just set out the full document using the template provided in thread # 2 and have seen that points 13 - 15 cover the issues regarding signage, so feel that the point made in 3 is almost being repeated in those points.   

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure why you haven't put any of these in as facts about the car park and event, instead of repeating what's already in the template:

PCN was left on car in January 2016 for parking outside a marked bay.  Car next to bay had slightly encroached into bay, so same was done.  Hard to remember full details, but after a number of fruitless attempts asking them to clarify why they were charging such an extortionate amount for a £3 all day car park, someone from their company was spoken to on the phone.  Shortly after this call in 2016, an email was received from Excel Parking saying that the case had been 'put on hold'.