Excel Parking CCBC Claim Form - What next?

Coupon-mad

I would add that:

The Claimant is put to strict proof that they checked up-front at the time, for a close-match keying error that would have attributed the payment to that vehicle.  The charge appears to have been issued unfairly and based only on automated data, which is illegal under the Data Protection Act and Surveillance camera Code of Conduct.  All this could have been avoided for the sake of a mandatory 'human check'.  The Claimant obtained DVLA data without reasonable cause and stood in breach of their trade body (IPC) Code of Practice and also known parking industry best practice also confirmed by the British Parking Association, which has always required manual checks to avoid unjustified ticketing of paying patrons.

Fruitcake

Don't assume that the driver made a mistake with entering the VRM. It is just as likely that the machine was faulty. Indeed, the IPC has instructed it's members to install typo-proof machines as a moral duty.

The International Parking Community (IPC) on Twitter: "@_TheIPC's mantra is that no motorist should be marginalised - or humiliated! (See news article below) @_TheIPC's award nominated "Get Your Reg Right" campaign urges the manufacture of #typoproof #parking payment systems as a moral duty. #mondaythoughts https://t.co/izGqyc1wO0 https://t.co/ztH9lbYpX2" / Twitter

The technology has existed for years to prevent the VRM of a vehicle that is not present in the car park from being entered.
The pay machines are not synchronised with the ANPR cameras, and thus these errors occur on a regular basis. They can be avoided, but it is my belief and opinion that parking companies deliberately refuse to install typo proof systems in order to generate money.

You should mention the system failure that would otherwise have prevented this, and the failure of the claimant to comply with the requirements of the IPC by not installing typo-proof systems.

Le_Kirk

Sazzy61 said:

Ah, OK thanks. I don't really understand the nuances of 'legalese', so I'll fix that, ta.
I just sort of assumed that 'In your own words' meant exactly that, but if this is what it takes to get the job done, I'm on it! 

It's not legalese, it's grammar!  Your defence will be OK as it is but are you sure it was you that made the mistake?  I would remove that and state that the PDT did not register your VRM correctly due to a machine error.  If you did type your VRM incorrectly why did the PPC's software not pick it up and realise that there was no car in the car park with that VRM?

Castle

Does this "wrong" VRM actually exist?
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-tax

Sazzy61

Can anyone please tell me the email address to send my defence submission to, and what the subject line should be?
I've looked through the  Newbies thread and I can't see it there; only a reference to it being posted by Keith P.

Coupon-mad

Go back to the first post of the Template Defence thread.  It's all there for you.

You will need to keep going back to the 12 steps there, even after emailing the defence.

Sazzy61

*** UPDATE ***

This case went to court today; only 3 people in attendance, myself, the judge and a representative for Excel Parking. Here are the highlights...

• They alleged that I parked without paying, and that there was no record of my car registration on the list of recorded reg’s for that day. I argued that having only recently acquired the car, I may have keyed in the reg incorrectly.

• They said that whatever reg I entered, correct or otherwise was not recorded as leaving at the time that the photograph shows I left. The judge dismissed all that on the grounds that all the reg numbers in their list were partially redacted anyway, and therefore could not be relied upon.

• Next, they provided PDF representations of each of the signs posted in the car park, along with a diagram of the car park with different coloured spots and a key to show the locations of each of the signs (I know it was all in colour because they also emailed it to me). But for some reason, the paper copies that the judge AND their representative had were all in black and white!! The judge also noted that while the PDF's showed what the signs look like, they had not provided any photographs of the actual signs in the actual car park, so the PDF's didn't really prove anything at all.

• Schoolboy errors, but it all played into my hands. So, while the two of them tried to decipher which signs were located where, I kept quiet and let them get on with it. Anyway, the judge concluded that wherever the signs were located, I had the opportunity to read and understand them. But without photographs, there was no proof of what was actually on the signs or what they look like.

• Finally, (and here’s the crucial point) the judge also was the only one to spot that while the sign DOES say that failure to pay will result in a £100 charge, it DOES NOT say that keying in an incorrect registration number will result in any such charge.

And on that basis, she found in my favour. I won!
I was also awarded the maximum £95 costs to cover my loss of earnings for the day.

Today was a good day. Thanks guys

Coupon-mad

You did send in a witness statement & photo/case law evidence pack yourself, we trust?

The gap in your thread looks like you only defended, as there's no discussion about your WS bundle & evidence you had to serve last month.

If you didn't then you went 'off piste' and ignored a court Order, so boy oh boy you dodged a bullet!  WELL DONE!  This was lucky:

Finally, (and here’s the crucial point) the judge also was the only one to spot that while the sign DOES say that failure to pay will result in a £100 charge, it DOES NOT say that keying in an incorrect registration number will result in any such charge.

Promise us please, that like us, you will do the upcoming DLUHC Public Consultation this year, and that you have read, understood and bookmarked the latest posts on the Announcement thread by MSE_JC?

We will post when the Govt releases their impact assessment and opens the Consultation.

You'll need to set email alerts for posts on bookmarked threads (on your profile) and of course, read & bookmark that top thread so that you know what I'm talking about.

VITAL that people respond to the Government about the level of parking charges and the banning of the false DRA 'fee' that feeds the toxic roboclaim firms and 'race to court' mentality.

Sazzy61

Coupon-mad said:

You did send in a witness statement & photo/case law evidence pack yourself, we trust?

The gap in your thread looks like you only defended, as there's no discussion about your WS bundle & evidence you had to serve last month.

Yes, I sent in the witness statement, followed all of the advice posted earlier. The judge actually asked me about the part regarding human rights and privacy etc.... I had to admit that I didn't actually know what was in all of that because my defence was downloaded 'on the advice of others'. I basically pleaded ignorance, and that I have had to rely on the internet because I don't know anything about the law, I just know the truth. I provided some screenshots taken from Google Streetview to show the carpark layout and to indicate where I parked. Other than that, I had no other evidence to offer, but as the only witness here, she accepted that as a defence.

Promise us please, that like us, you will do the upcoming DLUHC Public Consultation this year, and that you have read, understood and bookmarked the latest posts on the Announcement thread by MSE_JC?

Promise.

Snakes_Belly

Well done Sazzy61. Another Excel claim bites the dust.