Excel Claim from 2017 going to court

QuincyCockers

Claimant's WS 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/areelg4ewvdjuiylll5xd/Claimant-WS-redacted.docx?dl=0&rlkey=nodq6g82zouhykpvd452nxp9w

Coupon-mad

You've blacked out the entire payment log and haven't told us:

- does it more than cover your time in the car park and shows nothing anything like close to the hire car VRM, or your old car VRM that you gave as part of the IAS appeal?

- can you identify your likely payment?

Did you know there's a case called Excel v Ambler (transcript should be used as evidence by you) where a Senior Circuit Judge was damning about evidence that appeared to show that Excel had ALTERED a machine log?  Removed whole lines...apparently.

What precisely (word for word) does the large sign say under 'Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following'?

Fruitcake

My thoughts and suggestion of things that should be put into a witness statement.

The claimant is not the landowner.

There is no contract with or flowing from the landowner granting Excel authority to operate at the site.
For a simple contract to be valid, it must be signed by both parties in accordance with Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006.
For a document to be validly executed, it must be signed by two authorised persons in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
No such contract or validly executed document has been provided to the court. 

The Leaseholder witness statement does not name the landowner or any managing agent. It has been written by and signed by an employee of the claimant.
It is averred that Excel do not have the authority to operate at this site, and they are put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
Paragraph 6 of Excel's WS mentions a leaseholder agreement granting authority to undertake parking management activities and issue parking charge notices (PCNs) ...
There is no mention of authority to issue court claims.

Even if the court accepts that a contract to operate exists, it is averred that it does not grant authority to issue court proceeding. If such authority to issue court claims existed at the material time, there can be no reason not to produce it to the court. It is reasonable therefore to assume on the balance of probabilities that no such contract has been produced because it does not grant authority from or flowing from the landowner for Excel to issue court claims in their own right.

Stock images of signs from a computer file have been produced, but no close up images taken on the date of the alleged event to prove the displayed terms and conditions matched exactly the stock images.
Again, it is reasonable to assume that if such signs did exist, images of them would have been provided to the court clearly showing their position in relation to the defendant's vehicle. Again, Excel is put to strict proof that clear and legible signs would have been seen by the driver, and were positioned such that the driver could not possibly have missed them from the position where the vehicle was parked.

Snakes_Belly

It's not unreasonable to believe that you pay upon exit in a barrier car park.

There is no log showing the VRN entry for the period of time that the car was parked. The driver paid upon exit so the consideration element of the contract has been made. Excel have not provided the log for the period that the driver was parked.

Excel's terms and conditions boards are full of text some very small. 

WS from colleagues regarding change. 

Why has it taken Excel so long to chase this they are a litigious company?. My claim was for a transgression in 2017 and the hearing was in 2019.  

Snakes_Belly

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19087652.honest-mistake-leaves-darlington-woman-100-parking-charge-taking-covid-test/

It's not clear upon entry that it is a pay car park. The signage is on the passenger side and the text is small and in yellow on blue which is not easy to read.

Snakes_Belly

BEWARE !!!!!! TURPIN'S CAR PARK

The hotel was ok but BE WARNED the car park is operated by Excel and if you are getting dropped of and go one minute over the 10 you will get a £100 invoice disguised as a parking ticket from Excel. If you then contact premier inn you will see the real face of the company. They are not interested and will just keep repeating its out of our hands as we sold the car park to Excel. I would think that selling the car park to a company with such a poor reputation as Excel tells you more about premier inn than anything. After many years of staying in Premier Inns all over the UK this will be my last time. No real apology, no offer to mitigate just a complete WE DONT CARE AND ARE NOT INTERESTED ATTITUDE.

Read less

There are a number of comments about this car park. Premier may have leased this car park to Excel.

QuincyCockers

Hi all,

Thanks for the comments which I will address.

Here is my redacted WS. Still needs finishing up at the end. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5r0nnqnvhg7wme/01 CQ Witness Statement Redacted.pdf?dl=0

 Here is their Vehicle log I've redacted reference numbers (it is redcated anyway by Excel). 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hlmn44q0zbjsqhj/Vehicle Log.pdf?dl=0


I am certainly improving my Word, PDF and Dropbox skills if nothing else!

As always thank you! 

Coupon-mad

Lease until 2036, according to the evidence.

Some might day that, based on their track record and aggressive ticketing MO, they'll ruin that retail park long before that

QuincyCockers

Coupon-mad said:

You've blacked out the entire payment log and haven't told us:

- does it more than cover your time in the car park and shows nothing anything like close to the hire car VRM, or your old car VRM that you gave as part of the IAS appeal?

- can you identify your likely payment?

Did you know there's a case called Excel v Ambler (transcript should be used as evidence by you) where a Senior Circuit Judge was damning about evidence that appeared to show that Excel had ALTERED a machine log?  Removed whole lines...apparently.

What precisely (word for word) does the large sign say under 'Parking Charge Notices will be issued for the following'?

The log shows I paid £3.30 which was more than needed for the two hours I was there. It shows I paid for 4 hours in total. The VRM is identifiable and is my old vehicle plate I entered  in error.

I’m not sure but don’t think Excel has tampered with the log in this case. When they produced it, it was to show that the hire car VRM wasn’t there which is the basis of their particulars of claim.


Under the actual exit sign as it is today it says:

- Failure to make payment within 5 minutes following entry to the car park/private land

- Not registering the full and accurate VRM when making Payment

- Parked after the expiry of time and/or date in a pay car park

- Failure to park wholly within the Unes of a single marked bay

- Using a disabled bay without clearly displaying a Disabled Blue Badge

- Parking one of the following: Coach, Lorry. HGV. Caravan Caravanette or Mobile Home

- Parked in a restricted area of the car park or land

Under their WS template it says similar:

- Failure to make payment within 10 minutes following entry to the car park/private land

- Not entering the full and accurate VRM when making payment

- Parked in a restricted area of the car park or land

- Using a disabled bay without clearly displaying a valid disabled blue badge

- Parked after the expiry of time and/or date in a pay car park

- Failure to park wholly within the lines of a single marked bay

QuincyCockers

Fruitcake said:

My thoughts and suggestion of things that should be put into a witness statement.

The claimant is not the landowner.

There is no contract with or flowing from the landowner granting Excel authority to operate at the site.
For a simple contract to be valid, it must be signed by both parties in accordance with Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006.
For a document to be validly executed, it must be signed by two authorised persons in accordance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
No such contract or validly executed document has been provided to the court. 

The Leaseholder witness statement does not name the landowner or any managing agent. It has been written by and signed by an employee of the claimant.
It is averred that Excel do not have the authority to operate at this site, and they are put to strict proof that the contrary is true.
Paragraph 6 of Excel's WS mentions a leaseholder agreement granting authority to undertake parking management activities and issue parking charge notices (PCNs) ...
There is no mention of authority to issue court claims.

Even if the court accepts that a contract to operate exists, it is averred that it does not grant authority to issue court proceeding. If such authority to issue court claims existed at the material time, there can be no reason not to produce it to the court. It is reasonable therefore to assume on the balance of probabilities that no such contract has been produced because it does not grant authority from or flowing from the landowner for Excel to issue court claims in their own right.

Stock images of signs from a computer file have been produced, but no close up images taken on the date of the alleged event to prove the displayed terms and conditions matched exactly the stock images.
Again, it is reasonable to assume that if such signs did exist, images of them would have been provided to the court clearly showing their position in relation to the defendant's vehicle. Again, Excel is put to strict proof that clear and legible signs would have been seen by the driver, and were positioned such that the driver could not possibly have missed them from the position where the vehicle was parked.

This is excellent. I will be adding it to my WS under “Landowner”.

Thank you