DCBLegal/Excel Parking - Hearing Date June 2023

Coupon-mad

I think they are worth including to counter what they are saying.

Then add their own SAR bundle and sarcastically talk somewhere about Excel being hoist by their own petard, by supplying under a statement of truth, misleading stock photos of signs that their own SAR reply shows were not there. 

I think I saw 'PPC' (a slang forum acronym!) in paragraph 25.  Don't use forum slang.

WoodyTheCowboy

Added that in with a lovely touch of sarcasm. 

14th is the deadline so I'm going to get that submitted today and all being well, hope they crumble. We'll see. I'm prepared either way.

Thank you once again to everyone for your help thus far!

WoodyTheCowboy

Hearing date is tomorrow. Not a peep so far from Excel or DCBL.

Ready to rumble regardless! 

Umkomaas

WoodyTheCowboy said:

Hearing date is tomorrow. Not a peep so far from Excel or DCBL.

Ready to rumble regardless! 

I'd chance a quick call to your allocated court to double check that the hearing is still scheduled to proceed tomorrow. Might save you a wasted day/journey. 

WoodyTheCowboy

Just done exactly that, they informed me that it is still open and unless I hear otherwise to turn up at MK tomorrow ready for the hearing. I'll get there half an hour before to get settled and hopefully return here with a victory.

Snakes_Belly

Good luck for tomorrow

WoodyTheCowboy

I believe the saying is ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

The points the Judge raised when delivering his judgement were as follows:

• He didn't like para 35 of the Claimant WS - I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to attend, please decide the claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR 27.9(1)(a)-(b). Basically saying that the Claimant was "hedging his bets" and that's not how CPR 27.9(1) works.
• Said that the onus was on the Claimant to prove under the balance of probabilities that I had entered a contract and they failed to do so.
• The Claim Form was incorrect as on there they stated I failed to pay at a Pay and Display car park, something the Claimant didn't dispute and yet the whole basis of their claim was that the car park was Pay by Phone and all signage indicated as such.   
• The Judge really liked the Google street view images of the entrance to the car park, stating that it proved as a fact there were no signs at the entrance.
• My screenshot of the app not working showed that as a fact I was unable to pay.
• The only thing eluding to having to Pay by Phone was the piece of paper taped to the bin bags over the payment machines but it did not give clear instructions on what a motorist should do if they are unable to pay such as leave the car park, or that a motorist would be charged if they are unable to pay by phone, therefore no contract was entered.
• My point in my WS referring to IPC Code of Practice that states “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges”. The Judge stated that no such signage have been evidenced and therefore it is stated as fact that it did not exist and they have not abided by the code.
• The Judge also made a point that the Claimant's WS carried "little weight" as the actual Claimant had not shown up and because of the comments he made regarding CPR 27.9.

All in all, the Claimant failed to prove their claim and the case was dismissed! It was about to be left at that but I opted to deliver the kill shot and requested costs. At first the Judge was questioning what costs I was claiming, admittedly I got a little confused as he began talking about unreasonable behaviour, to my amazement Excel's legal rep then assisted! Explaining to the Judge I was requesting the costs I'd outline at the end of my WS bundle! I got fixed costs and mileage, not too shabby at all.

The help of this forum and its members has been incredible. Without it, I doubt I'd have stood much of a chance or had any idea what I was doing! The fact you all contribute your own time, to help others the way you do, is really quite something. 

Thank you.

Snakes_Belly

Well done and thanks for the report.

I did take a peek at Courtserve and saw that two hours were allocated to your hearing. That would at least £300 plus VAT for the rep. Then the court fees and your costs. Then the cost of the paperwork.  An expensive afternoon for Excel.      

Coupon-mad

WoodyTheCowboy said:

I believe the saying is ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

The points the Judge raised when delivering his judgement were as follows:

• He didn't like para 35 of the Claimant WS - I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to attend, please decide the claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR 27.9(1)(a)-(b). Basically saying that the Claimant was "hedging his bets" and that's not how CPR 27.9(1) works.
• Said that the onus was on the Claimant to prove under the balance of probabilities that I had entered a contract and they failed to do so.
• The Claim Form was incorrect as on there they stated I failed to pay at a Pay and Display car park, something the Claimant didn't dispute and yet the whole basis of their claim was that the car park was Pay by Phone and all signage indicated as such.   
• The Judge really liked the Google street view images of the entrance to the car park, stating that it proved as a fact there were no signs at the entrance.
• My screenshot of the app not working showed that as a fact I was unable to pay.
• The only thing eluding to having to Pay by Phone was the piece of paper taped to the bin bags over the payment machines but it did not give clear instructions on what a motorist should do if they are unable to pay such as leave the car park, or that a motorist would be charged if they are unable to pay by phone, therefore no contract was entered.
• My point in my WS referring to IPC Code of Practice that states “Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park and which materially affects the Motorist the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur Parking Charges”. The Judge stated that no such signage have been evidenced and therefore it is stated as fact that it did not exist and they have not abided by the code.
• The Judge also made a point that the Claimant's WS carried "little weight" as the actual Claimant had not shown up and because of the comments he made regarding CPR 27.9.

All in all, the Claimant failed to prove their claim and the case was dismissed! It was about to be left at that but I opted to deliver the kill shot and requested costs. At first the Judge was questioning what costs I was claiming, admittedly I got a little confused as he began talking about unreasonable behaviour, to my amazement Excel's legal rep then assisted! Explaining to the Judge I was requesting the costs I'd outline at the end of my WS bundle! I got fixed costs and mileage, not too shabby at all.

The help of this forum and its members has been incredible. Without it, I doubt I'd have stood much of a chance or had any idea what I was doing! The fact you all contribute your own time, to help others the way you do, is really quite something. 

Thank you.

This is brilliant!

ANOTHER EXCEL ONE BITES THE DUST!

Three out of three today! Well done.  Costs as well - the cherry on top!

Here's a link to the other two wins today:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80139871#Comment_80139871

See you in August for the vital Public Consultation explained there.  All are needed.  The final push to change the law.

WoodyTheCowboy

Excel thought they were going to get a juicy payout from me but not today! 

A point the judge wasn’t too keen on either was the fact that Excel were claiming “debt recovery costs” of £60 for each individual ticket (they took me to court for four tickets). Asking the rep what debt recovery costs they had incurred and how could they have incurred them for each individual ticket if it was being brought forward with one claim. Had the rep stumped on that one! 

Fantastic result on the other hearings. 

I’ll be sure to contribute to the consultation and put a stop to these scumbags.