JBL123 vs. Excel Parking

JBL123

I'll be preparing my witness statement this weekend .... thanks for the advice and links. Very useful.

Is there any other useful information I can rely on? I feel I don't have much to support my argument as I'm relying on the 'fairness' of a miskeying typo.

How much understanding of the detail of the law as presented in my adapted template defence will I need in order to put my point across to the judge? 

I'll struggle to find the time to really read into things comprehensively.

JBL123

Fruitcake said:

Did the claimant's WS include exhibits and evidence because you haven't posted any?

They did but I removed them as I presumed they'd contain sufficient info for Excel to identify me (not sure if that matters now).

I can add them back in and reshare? 

Fruitcake

Yes, please show us the exhibits and evidence, especially the landowner contract. Excel already know who you are and that you are getting help from this forum.
If you redact anything, please tell us.
If the claimant has redacted anything, please tell us.

Fruitcake

As above, there is far too much personal information in that link.

As for the evidence and exhibits, there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner. 
A so-called Leaseholder Statement has been provided but it does not name the landowner and has not been signed by the landowner or one of their agents. It therefore fails the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to the formation of simple contracts and fails the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to the execution of documents.

JBL123

I wasn't too concerned (maybe naively) about leaving those details in but regardless see below revised redacted version:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2bytk48tf1duehw/Claimant Witness Statement Redacted Take 2_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

Fruitcake said:

As above, there is far too much personal information in that link.

As for the evidence and exhibits, there is no contract with or flowing from the landowner. 
A so-called Leaseholder Statement has been provided but it does not name the landowner and has not been signed by the landowner or one of their agents. It therefore fails the strict requirements of Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to the formation of simple contracts and fails the strict requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 with regards to the execution of documents.

The suggestion is that Excel lease this site and are de facto 'landowners'. We see a number of such 'Leasholder Statements' signed by Excel's own 'Alun Cockcroft' across a number of different cases. Whether the authenticity of their leaseholding has been fully tested, I'm not sure, but if you want to do that you could ask the council who pays the non-domestic rates on the car park, although probably too late now to get any response. 

Coupon-mad

My feeling is that where a PPC actually lease the whole site, that gives them legal title and status as a landholder.

If that is the case here and there's nothing odd about it (such as a suggestion that they run the whole site but the lease is only for 6 bays, as flew right over the head of HHJ Simpkiss in OPS v Wilshaw!) then I'd say attacking the 'landowner authority document' is not your strongest suit.

Snakes_Belly

If you had initially mentioned the car park there may have been others on the forum who had similar issues and this would have helped your case.

Excel's WS are full of irrelevant twaddle. They can be easily challenged if we can see them.    

JBL123

Snakes_Belly said:

If you had initially mentioned the car park there may have been others on the forum who had similar issues and this would have helped your case.

Excel's WS are full of irrelevant twaddle. They can be easily challenged if we can see them.    

Excels WS is in the link just above, if you could help me challenge it would be much appreciated.

Snakes_Belly

The signage (terms and conditions) are very detailed and the reference to VRN is in very small font I would argue that it could not form a contract.

That you made sufficent payment to cover the parking tariff and your only error was to input your VRN incorrectly as you were attending a inquest you were somewhat distracted. This is a minor issue (de minimis) and you have not caused the PPC any loss as you paid the tariff. Neither have you disadvantaged another motorist,

Mention the systems that Fruitcake as mentioned in their post.  Many PPC's are now adopting these systems that will check the VRN against the data base.

Regarding the PCN you realised that there was an administrative cost to the PPC and offered the sum of £20.00 being the charge that the British Parking Association would make for a keying in error.

Then mention the new CoP and the level of charge for a keying in error under the new CoP when this is eventually introduced. 

With regard to the cases that Excel mention in their WS. Shoe Lane refers to a barrier car park and cannot be compared to this car park. 

 Vine v Waltham Forest is taken out of context as Miss Vine won on appeal. 

With regard to using "online defences" the small claims court is where a lay person can defend themselves without the need and expense for employing a solicitor. 

No one wants to take these matters to court and take up valuable court time but until the new CoP is introduced it is the only way that a person can receive a modicum of fairness.