Second of two claims from Excel - Now at WS stage

HamzaM21

Second claim from Excel for the same matter. They are washing their hands by using the same template again to scare me into paying again. I had to settle the first one as I did not submit in time and got to the CCJ stage and paid to avoid a credit rating impact. But this second one I am defending and hope to win and need all the help I can get. Thanks

Le_Kirk

Why have you received a CCJ?  Did you receive the original PCN and the LOC and ignore them, did you receive a N1 claim form and not submit it to CBC?  Did you file and serve a defence?  Is your V5C up-to-date with your current address as this is the usual reason for not receiving documents from the PPC.  Have you downloaded a N244 form, have you decided if you are going for a set-aside with or without consent (£275 or £208)?

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

Why have you received a CCJ?  Did you receive the original PCN and the LOC and ignore them, did you receive a N1 claim form and not submit it to CBC?  Did you file and serve a defence?  Is your V5C up-to-date with your current address as this is the usual reason for not receiving documents from the PPC.  Have you downloaded a N244 form, have you decided if you are going for a set-aside with or without consent (£275 or £208)?

It's £108 with consent.

Le_Kirk

Yep, I thought I had corrected it but obviously removed the "2" and instead of typing "1" put "2" again. Thanks for the heads up.

HamzaM21

Le_Kirk said:

Why have you received a CCJ?  Did you receive the original PCN and the LOC and ignore them, did you receive a N1 claim form and not submit it to CBC?  Did you file and serve a defence?  Is your V5C up-to-date with your current address as this is the usual reason for not receiving documents from the PPC.  Have you downloaded a N244 form, have you decided if you are going for a set-aside with or without consent (£275 or £208)?

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding. To answer your questions first, the original PCN was received and challenged accordingly, then the appeal came back as denied with the same nonsense rubbish that these private parking companies spew saying that they are not responsible for the 3rd party application not working as it should etc and that I should have parked elsewhere instead. Essentially, distancing themselves from addressing the issue and admitting that they are in the wrong. I wasn’t able to appeal to the independent appeals board or POPLA as at the time a bereavement in the family led to the appeals window being missed. But upon reading the threads on the forum, they mention avoiding the independent appeals as they said its like 'kangaroo court' and they don’t really review it properly. Some time went by and I received an N1 form just before the new year. I contacted the solicitors/legal firm handling the claim who mentioned that I can send the evidence through to them and they will assess accordingly and we can come to some agreement. Therefore I gathered all my evidence and compiled a narrative to lay out a defence, but when I submitted my evidence to them via email, the solicitors (ELMS Legal Ltd) thought it was an official defence and turned me away and said it would need to be lodged as an official defence. I did the AOS via money claim and was about to start my defence, but I fell ill over the new year and when I went to submit my defence via the money claim portal, the option had gone as the window to lodge a defence had expired. Therefore I do admit and feel silly as it is partly my fault here, but in the first instance I should not have even had this headache as I have paid the parking company and have all the evidence to show them that I did everything in my power to make them aware of the situation at the car park etc, but still they lodged a CCJ in my name on the 10/02/2023. Since then I have been stressing out about this decision. I have been engaging in correspondence with ELMS Legal to clear my CCJ without having to go to the courts (as it seems paying it right now is the better option and stress free and will free me from this nightmare as the prospect is daunting and I can't risk my credit record being tarnished). On the other hand, I feel the ask is unjustified as they are taking liberties and I believe I have the right defence to ensure this goes away. The only thing I am uncertain of at this moment in time is if the CCJ goes beyond a month and I apply for a set aside and win, does the CCJ get wiped? How long does a set aside take to action? And how much would it be if I am on a low income and can get help with my fees? (this is without consent as the set aside is ultimately is not in the parking companies best interest as they want their money). I have the N244 form, but to get the fee reduced, do I have to send it manually? Or can I do it online too?. 

Now the backstory of what happened. On 06/06/2022, I parked in an excel car park in Derby, Copeland street. I used to use this place all the time for work and never had an issue. The site uses Connect Cashless Parking and their signage clearly advertises Connect as their app provider, showing options to pay by phone via the Connect app or to call their number. All which is listed under pay by phone. The app allows you to register and log multiple vehicles on there. I logged my Nissan and I logged my VW on there. Usually I use the Nissan as default, but on this day my car went in for servicing and so I took the VW to work. I tried to set the VW as default on the app, but it kept failing to register the VW as default (you can switch between the two, like the NCP app, but the NCP app is much much better at doing this). The app kept failing to register the VW as the default vehicle. But regardless, if I am using the app, I am not able to park two of my cars there at the same time so even with the VW parked there, it would show on the system that out of the two vehicles one is in session. 

Following the system failing to register the VW as default, I contacted Connect using their online support page 'contact us' form and left them a message saying that I had faced this issue and was having trouble as the app was failing to register the VW as default. I have a reference number from Connect for the support ticket too and to this day, I still have not received any response.  I was getting late for work and so left my car and paid for the session under the default vehicle. On top of this, I called Connect on the number Excel advertise on site should users face issues. On my lunch, I called Connect twice, on both occasions getting through to a customer rep before the call was hung up without reason. I then proceeded to call Excel Parking on their office number, once it rang and didn’t connect and on the second it kept ringing and a voicemail was issued stating the issue. Not having any luck, I left the car park for the day to go home. I have call records to evidence this. I also have bank statement evidence showing a payment was made to Excel Parking Services on the date of the contravention, so regardless of vehicle parked, as per the apps limitations, one of my cars was parked there and a payment was made. The claim particulars state that a vehicle was parked without displaying a valid ticket or permit, but the Connect app is digital and so no ticket is even issued. I have made all the conscientious efforts on my part to rectify the matter at hand. Following the appeal result, parking elsewhere was not an option as the car park digital facility is there to ease parking for customers and it is not my fault if it does not work as intended. Secondly, how can Excel not be responsible for Connect being a third party if it uses the app to profiteer and partners with them to provide parking services?!. Arrghhhhh makes me angry. 

Anyhow, this is my small narrative defence that I was initially going to file. I have then plugged this narrative into a wider defence template I found on the NEWBIES thread. I'll try and attach that defence file to this post, if not happy to share it in another post as the complete defence is 13 pages long (including appendix with evidence). Defence narrative: 

" The vehicle – WU11 RJO, was registered as the default vehicle [Evidence 2a] (screenshot was taken 15/06/2022 @ 13:30 PM [Evidence 2b] as evidence was gathered to submit for initial appeal [Evidence 2c] [Evidence 2d]. on the day of the alleged offence and as a result, payment was taken for the duration of the stay when the defendant parked at that location for work. The app allows the user to register multiple vehicles and, dependant on the vehicle being used on that day, the default vehicle can be made active. On the date of the offence, the defendant noticed the app was failing to register WU11 RJO as the default once they navigated off the ‘Vehicles’ section of the app to the home landing page, and in turn putting DX15 YCK – as the nominated vehicle. After noticing this error, the defendant decided to contact Connect Cashless Parking via their online contact form. Not knowing that this issue would escalate to where it has reached, they did not make a note of the message sent, but the message that was relayed to them was to notify of the error with registering default vehicles. Following submission of the contact form, a query reference number – 237281 [Evidence 3] was given. 

Following this, the defendant made attempts to call Excel Parking Services Limited on 0114 261 7111 on their lunch break. Calling twice to notify them of the error [Evidence 4]. On both occasions, having no luck in getting through to the claimant and not receiving any response to their initial outreach. Prior to leaving the car park, the defendant called the application holder – Connect Cashless Parking on 0345 434 8008 on two occasions[Evidence 4] to chase up the matter about the default feature not working. They got through on both occasions before the customer agent unexpectedly hung up the call without first providing a solution to the issue at hand. There have been multiple issues faced with this app and a lot of aggrieved customers when reviews for the app are reviewed in both iOS and Google Play app stores, with many users having faced a similar issue in the past. The defendant did not ignore the matter at hand and made several attempts to rectify the issue on the date this incident occurred. Therefore, ignorance cannot be implied as several attempts at contact were made following discovery of the issue with the parking app. Also, the app is all digital, therefore no physical ticket or permit could in fact be displayed. Hence, the claim particular is incorrectly adjudged.

In addition, the application states that the Connect Cashless Parking system does not facilitate Multiple Concurrent Purchases for different vehicle registration marks (VRM) at the same time. The vehicle - WU11 RJO - involved in this alleged breach is one of 2 vehicles that the defendant has registered on the application [Evidence 5]. Again, the application does not issue tickets, instead (as per the applications Frequently Answered Questions (FAQs) section as of 18/02/2023 @19:23PM) '…the parking attendant will be able to check if you have valid parking by checking your car's registration via their handheld computers which are integrated with our back end database'. Therefore, the Connect Cashless Parking system would show the attendant that only WU11 RJO is parked at Copeland Street. 

With reference to the second claim particular – ‘the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability’. The amount in the CCJ should not have been accumulated to such value as the parking tariff for the day - £2.70 – was made on Monday 6th June 2022 [Evidence 6]. The bank transaction is evidence of the outgoing payment to ‘Excel Parking Services’. This payment was taken from the debit card linked to the Connect Cashless Parking app.

When the defendant lodged an appeal to the claimant, the appeal was denied. On review of the appeal decision from Excel Parking Services Limited, the claimant cited, in relation to the problems incurred as a result of the parking application on site, 'we must clarify that Connect is a third-party software for which we are not responsible'. When paying for parking over the phone, motorists should ensure that their payment has been allocated to the correct vehicle registration number, it is imperative that the information used in 100% accurate'. The claimant bares full responsibility under the accuracy principle of UK GDPR [Article (5)(1)(d)] for the third party as Connect Cashless Parking are handling vehicle registration number (VRN) data as their contractor and are taking payments and profiteering on their behalf. This response to the appeal has also been cited by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUCH) as a cut and paste response from parking firms in the Statutory Code of Practice as a labyrinthine abuse of power and denial as means to extort monies from motorists." 

The funny thing is that they have tried to do me on two of my vehicles, the Nissan too, but on a different date with the exact same particulars of claim, however, I have submitted a defence for that, but that was prior to discovering the massive defence template I found on the forum. So the Nissan narrative is in first person form rather than 3rd and don’t know if that will go against me. But if they request evidence for that matter, I will provide the evidence etc. For the time being I need to find a resolve to this headache of mine. I appreciate you all for helping me on this, or offering to help, it actually means so much to me. Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

You are not guaranteed a set aside as you received the claim form.  So it would be down to a Judge's discretion.

They may or may not agree.

The only way to escape with no lasting CCJ is to pay it within 30 days of judgment (there was no 'decision', it was automatic because you failed to defend, I'm afraid).

HamzaM21

Coupon-mad said:

You are not guaranteed a set aside as you received the claim form.  So it would be down to a Judge's discretion.

They may or may not agree.

The only way to escape with no lasting CCJ is to pay it within 30 days of judgment (there was no 'decision', it was automatic because you failed to defend, I'm afraid).

So ultimately, I don't stand a chance of the set aside being approved, is that the case? I thought a set aside was a second bite at the apple had the defendant failed to defend the claim, but I guess it is also partly my fault for submitting the defence at the right time. My initial thinking was to pay the CCJ and then go through small claims court to lodge a case against Excel Parking Services, but wasn't sure if that would work or not as paying a CCJ is admission of liability despite not having been liable in the first instance. But as it has got to this stage, the trade off is pay and clear or not pay and tarnish credit record. 

I have been in touch with ELMS Legal (the solicitor whom is now handling the case). Through arguing my case with them, the payment of £277 being claimed has been reduced to £150. I then on Monday, sent them my whole defence (as mentioned above and more) and they flagged it and I still haven't had an update from them. Every time I call ELMS Legal, they tell me that Excel are looking into it, but the time is ticking to pay off the CCJ and remove it from my credit record. I know for a fact that they are going to wait to respond back to me once the deadline is passed hoping that I cave in and pay the £150, it is infuriating, but is that my only option then? 

Thanks, 

B789

Whilst your chances of getting a set-aside approved are probably less than 50:50 due to no defence being filed, if you are successful in getting the CCJ set-aside, then the CCJ is expunged from your file and no record of it will remain. That applies even if you didn't pay the judgement within 30 days of the order. However, if you pay it before the 30 days are up, it will not remain on your record either.

Paying the CCJ in order to keep your credit file clean does not in itself mean you admit liability but does make it harder to set-aside/defend. You have decisions to make.

The experts will correct me if I'm wrong but you could apply for a set-aside with or without consent. Without consent will cost £275 with no guarantees you will get the set aside or the cost refunded. With consent will depend on the claimant and will probably end up with you paying the claimed amount and their costs. That would cost less, £108 but if the PPC agree, it would mean that your CCJ is set aside and expunged from your credit record.

HamzaM21

B789 said:

Whilst your chances of getting a set-aside approved are probably less than 50:50 due to no defence being filed, if you are successful in getting the CCJ set-aside, then the CCJ is expunged from your file and no record of it will remain. That applies even if you didn't pay the judgement within 30 days of the order. However, if you pay it before the 30 days are up, it will not remain on your record either.

Paying the CCJ in order to keep your credit file clean does not in itself mean you admit liability but does make it harder to set-aside/defend. You have decisions to make.

The experts will correct me if I'm wrong but you could apply for a set-aside with or without consent. Without consent will cost £275 with no guarantees you will get the set aside or the cost refunded. With consent will depend on the claimant and will probably end up with you paying the claimed amount and their costs. That would cost less, £108 but if the PPC agree, it would mean that your CCJ is set aside and expunged from your credit record.

I do indeed have decisions to make. The annoying thing about all this is that Ive put myself in this position by not submitting that defence on time which is an absolute bummer. It looks as though I will have to make one last attempt at bargaining and getting the fee reduced as £150 is still extortion for an incident that did not occur. If I pay it then my credit record wont be impacted and this stress can go away. I do have another case with them, one which I have also paid, but I submitted my defence for that via money claim. If I pay this, do you think it would be worth reclaiming costs for this one through the other by filing a claim for costs? or is that not likely to stand as these people have put me through so much stress unnecessarily it taking a toll on me. 

If I pay that £150, what are my options as to then try and reclaim that as I am ultimately paying it under duress (of my credit record coming into play when it should not have). Could I go through small claims court to open up a new claim against the parking company or would paying it be the admission of liability and I'd have to take it on the chin and move on?. Again thank you all for helping me on this matter. Much appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

No, you can't pay it then sue for it back.

What do you mean by this:

"I do have another case with them, one which I have also paid, but I submitted my defence for that via money claim."

Paid what?

B789

HamzaM21 said:
It looks as though I will have to make one last attempt at bargaining and getting the fee reduced as £150 is still extortion for an incident that did not occur. If I pay it then my credit record wont be impacted and this stress can go away. 

I don't understand your logic. How can you bargain to get the CCJ sum reduced to £150? If you are going to pay the CCJ, then you have to pay the full amount. You are beyond any point where you can negotiate.

 I do have another case with them, one which I have also paid, but I submitted my defence for that via money claim.

Again, you are not making much sense... are you saying you paid the charge and you have submitted a defence through MCOL?

You will have to explain a bit more clearly what is going on. You say you now have a second claim, you've done your AoS and you've submitted a defence through the MCOL website (groan). When did you get the second claim? What was the issue date of that claim. When did you submit your defence on the MCOL website (groan again).

Can you show us your defence? Is the second claim for the same reason as the first one and the same location?