Excel Claim from 2017 going to court

QuincyCockers

 Hi,

I am defending a claim for a breach of contract from Dec 2017 and need advice.

Admittedly, I’ve made errors. However payment for a ticket was made and is provable.

I parked in a multi-storey barrier controlled car park in a hire car, as ours was written off a few days before. I returned, paid ticket, barrier went up, I left. 

My errors :- 

Not paying ticket within 10mins.

Entered my car reg not the hire car I was driving. 

Identified myself as driver.

I received a PCN from Excel Jan 2018 for £100 reduced to £60 if I paid. I disputed, it went to IAS by Mar 2018.

I requested a log of cars parked that day from Excel. It proves I paid £3.30. The log they sent does not reveal my entire reg. I sent my log book details but made no difference.

IAS later upheld Excel's claim. I stated I would await a court date.

I received a demand for £160 from DRP. I wrote explaining why I would not respond to any further letters.

I wrote back to Excel demanding again they take the matter directly to court and not involve debt collecting agencies which I saw as bullying tactics.

I then received another from Zenith. I wrote to Zenith the same. 

2 yrs later, May 2020, I received a Letter Before Claim. I requested SAR. They sent info, but no reference to Zenith or the vehicle log or my log book image.

In March 2021 Elm Legal requested recovery of £160 and now the Particular of Claim. The amount now £245 includes £50 legal fees and £35 court fees.

The claim was issued on 05/10/2021

I submitted Acknowledgment of service on 15/10/2021 and this was acknowledged received on 18/10/2021.

I am looking to defend the full amount. What are my chances? Any advice with defence appreciated. Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Your chances are the same as the NEWBIES thread post #2 tells you.  I am sure I mention our forum win rate there.  It also explains how to defend.

D_P_Dance

Have you read the newbies?  Have you read other threads?  Have you complained to your MP?  IMO your chance are better that even of beating this.  You have paid and judges are well aware of this scam.

KeithP

QuincyCockers said:

The claim was issued on 05/10/2021

I submitted Acknowledgment of service on 15/10/2021 and this was acknowledged received on 18/10/2021.

I am looking to defend the full amount. What are my chances? Any advice with defence appreciated.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th November 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

QuincyCockers

Thank you all for your guidance. I am compiling my draft defence together today and over the coming days.

As part of my defence, should I include the exchanges during the IAS process or just make reference to that stage. Would it be beneficial to provide the exchanges on this thread in order to set out a summary as part of my defence?

I was not confident in the IAS process from the outset and had not expected a favourable outcome having read reviews however I followed the process to show compliance if it did get this far. 

Redx

Stories go into the WS in several months time , a defence should be concise and concentrate on a bit of background information plus legal arguments !

Post your proposed draft of paragraphs 2 and 3 below

QuincyCockers

Hi,

Here is my draft. Appreciate your support. Many thanks.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

3.         On the ../12/2017, from the time of ...... through to ...... the Defendant parked a hire car, registration number ......., at ............ Car Park. On exit the Defendant paid for the time in the car park at one of the paying in machines. The car park Vehicle Log will show the Defendant paid more than the required amount. On exit the Defendant inserted the paid ticket into the slot, the car park barrier went up and he left.

 

4.         It was a gloomy December morning and the weather was cloudy, wet and cold with poor visibility. The Defendant’s personal health at that time was not good having a heavy cold and a temperature. On that day he suffered from a headache which a colleague provided him with paracetamol and during the day he had vertigo.

 

5.         On arrival, the Defendant parked the vehicle near the lower deck exit very close to the exit barriers. He exited the car park on foot through this point and was out of the car park in seconds seeking shelter from the weather as quickly as possible. There was no clear or obvious signage or alert to indicate payment was required on entry or within 10 minutes from this point of egress. The Defendant wasn’t aware how long his stay would be.

 

6.         On return around 12pm the Defendant did not have the correct change to make exact payment for the time the vehicle was parked. He received some coinage from two colleagues and eventually made payment for four hours instead of two because he didn’t have the required coins in hand.

 

7.         During payment the machine required a number plate to be entered. Unknown to the Defendant at the time he mistakenly entered his family car registration number ....... . A few days previously the Defendant’s wife was involved in a serious car accident and was injured. The family car of 15 years was written off. The journey in the hire car was the first outing having been hired a couple days earlier on the Saturday.

 

The Defendant received a PCN from the Claimant demanding £100, 45 days after parking at ........ . The Claimant states contravention at this car park takes place ten minutes after entering which is the allowed “Grace Period”. The vehicle entered around 10am. The PCN however has the contravening time of 12:14pm. Payment was made at 12:12pm. The details of the PCN are therefore incorrect and must be struck out.

The Defendant has corresponded and provided true accounts to the Claimant as to making payment on exit and later complied with the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) ../03/2018. On the ../02/2018 the Defendant stated they were reliant on the Vehicle Log of the ../12/2017 to determine payment had been made. This log was not provided until the ../03/18 over a month later when it was submitted during the IAS process.

 

The Vehicle log reveals that the information provided in paragraphs 6 and 7 is correct. It reveals that no loss to the Claimant had occurred. The Defendant provided this evidence to the Claimant but it was dismissed. On the ../03/2018 and through the IAS process, the Defendant prompted the Claimant to take the matter directly to court.

 

The Defendant thereafter received letters inflating the costs and requesting further monies.  £160 was demanded by Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) which was rejected by the Defendant who wrote back explaining that a request was made to the Claimant to take the matter direct to court and the Claimant would not reply to further letters from the DRP. 

Another letter was then received also demanding £160 from another agency, Zenith. The Defendant wrote to Zenith and separately to the Claimant on the ../06/2018 rejecting this demand and to reiterate that Excel take the matter directly to court and to stop sending demands for money.  Thereafter, the Defendant received no further correspondence for almost two years when a Letter Before Claim was sent directly by the Claimant on ../05/2020 which also included this added debt collection charge of £60.

Finally, the Defendant received a letter from Elm Legal ../03/21 demanding the same amount for £160 prior to the final claim increasing the charge to £245 (with Legal fees £50 and court fees £35). Once again inflating the costs.

Le_Kirk

Your defence should be short, punchy legal/technical arguments; you seem to be writing a witness statement.  Just keep to the point, you start off well, laying out the style of car park and getting to the crux of the matter (inputting the wrong VRM) but then go rambling.  Save the rest of the story for the witness statement.  All paragraphs require a number.

Coupon-mad

I'd stop at #3 and keep all the rest for the later WS and evidence stage, pre-hearing.  The detail about the appeal and letters and time of payment, is not needed yet.

Obviously this is only the facts section snd you sign and date at the bottom of the whole template defence, as that includes the other basics like unclear signs, no landowner authority and the false added 'costs'.

QuincyCockers

Ok many thanks. I'll keep it short as suggested and keep the rest for later. Will come back and keep up to date. Cheers for now.

[Deleted User]

Received the DQ. Have filled out as per Bargepole. Has a file date of 25th Nov. 

I will email it back to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk 

Do I have to send this to Excel's legal rep too? I recall a case I had with CEL which reached this point but I don't think I sent to them. That claim has been "stayed" since May 2020.