Excel Parking and Debt Recovery - help

Adam_

Coupon-mad said:

Adam_ said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I asked for SAR which they sent a while back, this has supposedly all the submission into the machine from that day, would you like me to send it?

Yes please. Post it up on here so others can comment. Let's see everything that they have sent but particularly the VRN list.

here is the list i was sent

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nCNjGxz-cN3qn6uTlFKNcicG-VW5bYWZ/view?usp=share_link

Anything useful there? We have no idea what number plate you are looking for and what that machine log shows you that helps your case?

My numberplate begins with RA, however its not on that sheet so I'm not sure how that could help me with my WS

Adam_

Right! Think I've added what I needed to.

Heres the link to Witness Statement V2

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_mqoNu2zxW7tsEHaTVG1K_Ihtkbv-LT5giZ1QXxn5hs/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Adam_ said:

Coupon-mad said:

Adam_ said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I asked for SAR which they sent a while back, this has supposedly all the submission into the machine from that day, would you like me to send it?

Yes please. Post it up on here so others can comment. Let's see everything that they have sent but particularly the VRN list.

here is the list i was sent

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nCNjGxz-cN3qn6uTlFKNcicG-VW5bYWZ/view?usp=share_link

Anything useful there? We have no idea what number plate you are looking for and what that machine log shows you that helps your case?

My numberplate begins with RA, however its not on that sheet so I'm not sure how that could help me with my WS

Take a closer look.

Machine D only recorded one numberplate.  Machine C only two.  Suggests some were not functioning. The list is also unsigned, undated, there's no header, no provenance to make it a useful piece of evidence; no-one has stated it is a 'true copy' of all data from all machines that day...

...and it's merely a saved PDF of an otherwise blank sheet word document that absolutely ANYONE could have altered, as Excel were found to have done in Excel v Ambler.

If it is your case that you paid, then you paid. I didn't look back at the whole thread. Did you ask your bank to check and see if a pending transaction was never collected by the merchant?

That happens sometimes - i.e. card payment made, held as 'pending' for some reason and then the PPC doesn't accept the payment and it disappears.  But banks can see it.

Added a word here that is vital:

"At the time of the alleged contravention" 

Coupon-mad

Put Excel v Ambler in as an exhibit if you haven't already (the actual transcript).

Not_A_Hope

Some comments.

Para 4 - is numbered twice.
Para 5 - for clarification it might be best to state how you believed you had paid. Cash or card? (Para 7 suggests it was a card)
Para 8 - you state you paid but if you actually paid by card the cost should be on your bank statement. Perhaps the payment you believed you made in good faith was somehow declined as a machine or system failure i.e. not your fault
Para 10 and 13. I would state the add one are proposed to be banned under the new legislation.
Para 13 - also numbered 29.

Your WS from 14 continues with lots of evidence of the failures of this particular car park. These are not part of the Abuse of Process section. I would put this information above the abuse section as you want the judge to rule in your favour first and then if not consider removing the fake add on costs. Finish with your hearing costs


 

Snakes_Belly

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nCNjGxz-cN3qn6uTlFKNcicG-VW5bYWZ/view?usp=share_link

Machine 373A is on Gresley Row. If the rest are on Backcester Lane that is not much activity for a short stay car park in the centre of the city.

In the recent Nuneaton Case there were shades of the Ambler Case. Excel's request to appeal was declined by a HHJ. 

Snakes_Belly

Ambler case page 1

Snakes_Belly

Ambler case page 2 

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  there is a "c" missing in 4 out of the 5 mentions of the location.

1505grandad

Some observations:-

Would it be easier to state "Claimant" instead of the slightly different names of the ppc you are quoting throuhout?.

Para 14 and 15  -  (typo)  -  "It is believed that these (metres) are solar powered and work on a 3g or 4g network."

Para 17  -  "....approach road to the car park and clearly showing (no) insufficient signage once entering the car park to form a contract."

(no)  -  double negative  -  remove

Para 15  -  "(Since Excel's contract has been terminated a new operator has taken over) and  similar issues are occuring which would indicate that there are some problems with the supply of power to the parking metres."

Not clear about (this) because para 19 states:-

"Such are the issues at Three Spires Shopping Centre Short Stay Car Park (since Excel Parking Service Limited have taken over this site), a petition has been set up calling for the site to be returned to Lichfield District Council."

I believe that in addition to the S_B's court case other experts may also advise to add others  -  just a thought.