County Court Business Centre - Excel Parking

HWOOD17

Thanks for advice.  Have called the Court and the fee has been paid, so it will be going to Court.  Will update on the outcome.

HWOOD17

Just got back from County Court and case was dismissed by the Judge.  She said the markings in the car park were not clear and as a result the amount the Claimant was demanding was not proportionate.

Thank you for all the help given on this site and in particular for giving me the confidence to fight these unfair charges and not to just cave in and pay.

Will post some further details later.

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done!

Yes, please do post details if what else was said by the Claimant's rep and how much you had to speak, and did you ask for your costs at the end?

Ed2022

Well done. Glad to hear your ordeal is over.

Snakes_Belly

Well done Another Excel claim bites the dust. They are losing quite a number at the moment. 

Ed2022

I had some correspondence after the N180 submission that ELM legal are no longer representing Excel. 

KeithP

Ed2022 said:

I had some correspondence after the N180 submission that ELM legal are no longer representing Excel. 

Yes, we see that quite a lot.

Umkomaas

Nice one, and well done. Look forward to reading the further detail of your day in court you said you'd be posting. 🥂

HWOOD17

Hi all,

Sorry, had to rush to work after the Court hearing, so am only getting the chance to post now.

I cannot remember the exact wording the Judge gave, but both myself and the Claimant's representative were given initial opportunities to put forward our points, then she spoke for a while and then gave us a second opportunity at the end before giving us her findings and decision.

Claimant's representative went with signage and asked if I had read them.  He said that if I had, I understood the terms and conditions which had formed the contract.  I said I had quickly read them, but they weren't positioned well, so felt that they were unable to form a contract.  I also said that the the terms referred to marked bays and the reality was that the area of the car park did not have clearly marked bays, so it was hard to ascertain what was a bay.  This is where the photographic evidence was key and I think that is what the Judge based her decision on.

She then began talking about her thoughts on it and she simplified it really so it became clear that the only real question she was basing it on was whether the bays were clearly marked and if I had taken up two bays and therefore caused a loss of revenue.  She also then made a quick reference to the amount being claimed and said that she did not feel this was proportionate.  She did ask the representative a question regarding the other cars that were parked next to me and if he knew if those cars hard already been there when I parked and this stumped him, and he replied that the claimant hadn't provided that information.  

We were asked to give final comments and the representative didn't really offer anything.  I could sense at this point the direction the tide was going so just briefly doubled down on unclear markings and a disproportionate amount.

She went to her findings and said that although she felt there was sufficient signage to make me aware of the terms and conditions, the upkeep of the car park and lack of markings meant that they could not really claim a loss of revenue and therefore the amount being claimed was disproportionate.  She said with that in mind, the case was dismissed.

She then did ask me if I had incurred any costs and although I would have liked to get some money out of Excel, in truth I had taken annual leave from work, only travelled a short distance by car and had parked for free, so I felt I would have been a bit dishonest if I had asked for costs.  

Ed2022

That’s really helpful as gives some insight on important points to focus on although each and every case is different.