Excel Parking Services - Siddals Road car park Derby -(I WON!)

KeithP

MysticDad said:

My receipt says "Vehicle: Skoda" and they insist that this is where I should have entered the Vehicle Registration Mark, despite having no supporting evidence.

Isn't their 'supporting evidence' in the terms you have shown us?...

MysticDad

If the electronic receipt said "Vehicle Registration Number", then I'd agree with you (but it doesn't). 

I did repeatedly ask Excel for some evidence of what was entered through the app and the corresponding fields. They have ignored my requests. 

The only thing I have to rely on is my payment receipt, which doesn't mention vehicle reg, but does correctly state that my vehicle is a Skoda:

B789

There is no mention anywhere in those terms about using an app. There is possibly a suggestion that an app may have been used in the final paragraph: "...purchase a valid ticket or make payment."

Hardly a contract being made there if there is no mention of the payment method being used. Surely there is something in the consumer act that would cover this situation.

MysticDad

The terms were written with the machines in mind, and they didn't bother to update them when they added app payments.

The terms on the machines either don't apply to app users at all, or they are ambiguous in meaning. Ambiguity in standard terms should be read in favour of the Consumer. 

MysticDad

The hearing is scheduled for this afternoon - wish me luck!

Le_Kirk

Good luck, come back and tell us how it went.

MysticDad

Well, that was stressful.  The court ballsed up!  The original Directions scheduled the hearing to be video link, but when the Court made a further Order after the Claimant missed the original deadline to provide a statement it seems they changed the listing to be in person (without informing me or the Claimant).  I only found out about this at mid-day today, with the hearing listed at 3pm!

Fortunately I live locally, was working from home, and had nothing booked in my work diary, so I was able to take the afternoon off so managed to get to the court on time.   (Apparently Excel found out the day before)

I spoke with the Clerk about this and she was very apologetic. She clearly took it seriously and took details of exactly what had happened.


Now, on to the hearing.  The Judge was District Judge Davies.  Excel did not attend and sent an agent [Judge was not impressed by this].  We both provided short submissions. Then the judge found in my favour on numerous grounds:

1)  He said that the wording of the claim was that I failed to display a valid ticket, but that it was impossible for anyone who paid by phone to do so.  Therefore the contract was impossible to fulfil and therefore unenforceable.  He rejected the Agent's submission that where consumers pay by phone ther VRM is the ticket and by not inputting my VRM on the App I had therefore failed to 'display' a valid ticket.

2)  He further said that Excel's statement focused on my (apparent) failure to enter my VRM correctly (which was not what the claim was about).  But that if the claim had been on that basis then it is not evident that is what happened.  The receipt says "Vehicle: Skoda", not VRM.  Excel had failed to provide clear evidence to show that I had not entered my information correctly.  Therefore had the claim been made on that basis it would also not have been successful.

3) Furthermore, had it been proven that I had entered the wrong information and that there had been a breach, then it was clear that I had paid and therefore the Claimant had not suffered any loss.  The breach was De Minimis (which I understand means it was a technical breach)

4) He also made reference to the Parking Code saying an incorrect VRM should only result in a maximum £20 charge.  [I believe he was referring to the BPA Code here, which I quoted in my statement because the original leaseholder agreement arguably referred to the BPA Code and the agreement had the BPA logo which I think is because they are BPA Corporate members, even though they are members of the IPC].  He said that this was just an observation and his decision did not hinge on this.

5) Finally, he agreed with my assertion that the Claimant had not complied with the Directions in that they had not provided a statement from the landowner - they had provided a statement from the leaseholder (ie Excel), which was inevitably self-serving. He said the Claim would have failed on this point alone.

The judge awarded me loss of earnings and expenses.  I am now in the pub enjoying a celebratory pint.

DW190

MysticDad said:

Well, that was stressful.  The court ballsed up!  The original Directions scheduled the hearing to be video link, but when the Court made a further Order after the Claimant missed the original deadline to provide a statement it seems they changed the listing to be in person (without informing me or the Claimant).  I only found out about this at mid-day today, with the hearing listed at 3pm!

Fortunately I live locally, was working from home, and had nothing booked in my work diary, so I was able to take the afternoon off so managed to get to the court on time.   (Apparently Excel found out the day before)

I spoke with the Clerk about this and she was very apologetic. She clearly took it seriously and took details of exactly what had happened.


Now, on to the hearing.  The Judge was District Judge Davies.  Excel did not attend and sent an agent [Judge was not impressed by this].  We both provided short submissions. Then the judge found in my favour on numerous grounds:

1)  He said that the wording of the claim was that I failed to display a valid ticket, but that it was impossible for anyone who paid by phone to do so.  Therefore the contract was impossible to fulfil and therefore unenforceable.  He rejected the Agent's submission that where consumers pay by phone ther VRM is the ticket and by not inputting my VRM on the App I had therefore failed to 'display' a valid ticket.

2)  He further said that Excel's statement focused on my (apparent) failure to enter my VRM correctly (which was not what the claim was about).  But that if the claim had been on that basis then it is not evident that is what happened.  The receipt says "Vehicle: Skoda", not VRM.  Excel had failed to provide clear evidence to show that I had not entered my information correctly.  Therefore had the claim been made on that basis it would also not have been successful.

3) Furthermore, had it been proven that I had entered the wrong information and that there had been a breach, then it was clear that I had paid and therefore the Claimant had not suffered any loss.  The breach was De Minimis (which I understand means it was a technical breach)

4) He also made reference to the Parking Code saying an incorrect VRM should only result in a maximum £20 charge.  [I believe he was referring to the BPA Code here, which I quoted in my statement because the original leaseholder agreement arguably referred to the BPA Code and the agreement had the BPA logo which I think is because they are BPA Corporate members, even though they are members of the IPC].  He said that this was just an observation and his decision did not hinge on this.

5) Finally, he agreed with my assertion that the Claimant had not complied with the Directions in that they had not provided a statement from the landowner - they had provided a statement from the leaseholder (ie Excel), which was inevitably self-serving. He said the Claim would have failed on this point alone.

The judge awarded me loss of earnings and expenses.  I am now in the pub enjoying a celebratory pint.

EXCELent. 

Enjoy your well deserved pint

B789

Fantastic news. A judge who knows their stuff. An expensive afternoon for the scumbags at Excel.

Well done! 

Snakes_Belly

Well done on your win.  

"Now, on to the hearing.  The Judge was District Judge Davies.  Excel did not attend and sent an agent [Judge was not impressed by this].  We both provided short submissions. Then the judge found in my favour on numerous grounds:"

I have never seen a hearing on this forum where Excel have attended. It is usually some poor sap from a low rent legal firm that has to put their head above the parapet.  

  "He said that the wording of the claim was that I failed to display a valid ticket, but that it was impossible for anyone who paid by phone to do so.  Therefore the contract was impossible to fulfil and therefore unenforceable.  He rejected the Agent's submission that where consumers pay by phone ther VRM is the ticket and by not inputting my VRM on the App I had therefore failed to 'display' a valid ticket."

That is very interesting. There are often situations where it is impossible to comply with the terms and conditions.