Excel Parking LBC following PCN after 14 days

Coupon-mad

Of course! That's the crux of your defence, which I already advised you.

Fruitcake

westcoast888 said:

sorry, i didnt quite edit i properly, trying to do a few things at the same time this morning!

BTW I havent disclosed i was the driver, only on this forum.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

PPCs monitor this forum. If they have a screengrab of your para 2 then they will be able to demonstrate to a judge that you have admitted to being the driver.
If you submit your para 2 as it appears on this forum then you will have admitted to being the driver.
If you were the driver then you should admit it. The PoFA only helps a keeper who was not driving.

westcoast888

Ok, to be totally honest i'm worried that I will not be able to give this the time it deserves. Christmas is upon us and with a young family im going to struggle getting this right. I must thank you all for being so helpful. Now is it possible to just pay the debt after I have filed the acknowledgement of service.

Mouse007

westcoast888 said:

Ok, to be totally honest i'm worried that I will not be able to give this the time it deserves. Christmas is upon us and with a young family im going to struggle getting this right. I must thank you all for being so helpful. Now is it possible to just pay the debt after I have filed the acknowledgement of service.

This is how the scam works, you along with many others give up.

Stop thinking and start thinking. You drove down a road into a car park, what did you see? no signs. Why did you see no signs, because they were not there or because they were turned away from you? Once in said car park what did you see? Entrance to shop, any signs? No because there are no signs.

The whole bloody thing is a scam, funded by those who give up! Please don't be one of them.

Coupon-mad

westcoast888 said:

Ok, to be totally honest i'm worried that I will not be able to give this the time it deserves. Christmas is upon us and with a young family im going to struggle getting this right. I must thank you all for being so helpful. Now is it possible to just pay the debt after I have filed the acknowledgement of service.

What?

As a busy Mum myself, IMHO paying a scammer to make them go away is not an example to set a young family.

You just need to copy my words about unclear signs & hidden machines into your facts section (literally adding one line) and send ONE email!

With a young family, aren't there better things to do with £260-odd quid than line the pockets of Captain Clampit, so he can buy more horses or yachts?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713705/amp/The-parking-ticket-fat-cats-one-s-chum-Prezza-two-drive-Aston-Martins-Meet-men-ve-millions-motorists-misery.html

westcoast888

Coupon-mad said:

westcoast888 said:

Ok, to be totally honest i'm worried that I will not be able to give this the time it deserves. Christmas is upon us and with a young family im going to struggle getting this right. I must thank you all for being so helpful. Now is it possible to just pay the debt after I have filed the acknowledgement of service.

What?

As a busy Mum myself, IMHO paying a scammer to make them go away is not an example to set a young family.

You just need to copy my words about unclear signs & hidden machines into your facts section (literally adding one line) and send ONE email!

With a young family, aren't there better things to do with £260-odd quid than line the pockets of Captain Clampit, so he can buy more horses or yachts?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713705/amp/The-parking-ticket-fat-cats-one-s-chum-Prezza-two-drive-Aston-Martins-Meet-men-ve-millions-motorists-misery.html

you of course are right! ive had a hectic couple of days, im back on it! thanks for making me see the light! stay tuned!

westcoast888

 

So I need to use in my defence the fact the signage was woefully inadequate, but what about the inflated charges as they then added £70 to the original £80. The £150 is being claimed at court with an additional court fee of £35 and legal rep charge of £50 making a total of £235 plus interest.

westcoast888

For the signage....

3. The first time the defendant was aware of a parking charge was when a Notice to keeper (NTK) was received at the defendants home address. This letter demanded a charge of £80. The defendant was unaware of having parked somewhere where a parking fee was due. The defendant wasn’t sure if in fact this was a scam as he could not remember parking at the address quoted. When the car park was later identified, the defendant did not remember seeing any clear signage on the day that would indicate that a parking fee was to be paid. The defendant thought the car park belonged to the shop that he was visiting. The salesperson in the shop did not mention anything about a parking charge. On a subsequent visit to XXXXX, it was found that there were small signs to each side of the entrance to the car park. The sign on the left of the entrance has text in English but could only really be possibly seen by the passenger of the vehicle. The sign to the right of the entrance is angled away from the drivers view, is in Welsh text and as such unreadable to the defendant as he is unfortunately not able to speak or read Welsh. On this subsequent visit the pay and display machine was located at the far end of the car park, obscured from view behind parked vehicles. The weather on the XXXXXX was exceptionally wet with flooding and poor visibility.

westcoast888

and for the added costs..

so first PCN £80
added £70 debt collection charges
total £150

Court claim £150 plus court fee £35 plus legal rep £50
total £235

lifted this from robertcoxx's fab defence.

4 A further ‘DEMAND FOR PAYMENT’ letter arrived with a ‘DEADLINE FOR ACTION’ included of 14 days. This ‘demand for payment’ letter was for £150 including debt collection costs of £70, it was received as intimidating and threatened court action. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law that for any penalty to escape being struck out under the penalty rule, it must be set at a level which already includes recovery of the costs of operating the scheme. However, this Claimant routinely claims (as in this case) a global sum of £150 per alleged PCN. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and falling foul of the binding authority in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. In the 2012 case, the Court of Appeal held that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the PCN itself would not [ref: para 419]. Thereafter, ParkingEye quietly dropped their ‘PCN plus indemnity costs’ double recovery business model and pursued £85 in the Beavis case, where it was determined by the Supreme Court that a significant justification for that private PCN was that it already included all operational costs [ref: paragraphs 98, 193 and 198]. Page 2 of 8 The Claim is tainted by an abuse of process and should not proceed to trial

5. It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue an inflated claim for a sum which it is not entitled to recover. The above authorities could not be clearer. Parking firms must choose between a ‘Beavis-level’ charge calculation or loss-based damages. A parking firm cannot seek to plead their claim in both but this Claimant routinely does - and has done in this case.

 6. Where it is clear as a matter of law at the outset that even if a Claimant were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks, a trial of the facts would be a waste of time and money, and the Defendant submits that it is proper that this action should be taken out of court as soon as possible.

do i then add the rest of coupon mads defence template from 4 onwards or is some of it not relevant to my case

Thanks

Coupon-mad

The added false 'costs' are more than covered by the template!  No adding anything like that.