Excel PCN - AoS submitted, defence drafted, advice appreciated

Butterycrumpetlover

KeithP said:

Are you really asking what date is fourteen days before 2nd October?

I am moreso concerned with the nuanced court procedures relating to the dates, rather than the arithmetic. The first reply to this thread is from yourself providing very useful and very accurate date and time information, I was hoping to gleam a confirmation similar to that response on a topic I know very little about in the grand scheme of things.

Coupon-mad said:

Butterycrumpetlover said:

On the exemplar in the newbies thread it repeats the defence.

Does it? Where?

Maybe the end bit about costs?

Does the wording in baz417's WS repeat word for word, what your defence said?  If it does, remove those odd paragraphs only, to avoid exact repetition.

You obviously need 3 of baz's exhibits because they are standard for all cases.

"On page 4 of this thread is the most recent version of mine."

If you want your WS and evidence list reviewed please re-post it as we won't look back. No time to do that, sorry! The forum is too busy.  We only read and reply to current replies.

I think I've just misunderstood the usage of terminology in the instance of the defence. I've since adapted a large portion of it to fit my situation.

I've not posted the WS yet. I've got several related exhibits to go alongside the ones provided in that exemplar, including receipts, images of the location showing the rubbish signage, reviews rating it poorly with most discussing the tactics used, and a newspaper article about this specific car park and again the tactics used.

Coupon-mad

Ah OK.  We will certainly help review your WS.

Le_Kirk

1505grandad said:

Do you mean the following?:-

"26.The Claimant stated that (See paragraph 26)....'Enforcement action may occur additional costs'.But the Claimant merely shows in evidence."

Wow, good use of the English language by the claimant!

Butterycrumpetlover

The claimant WS arrived in one letter today, and in another their attempt to get me to pay up. They've offered me lovely gesture of only paying them £200.00, and are threatening to stick £220.00 on my bill for the solicitor on the day if I don't pay. How kind.

The claimant WS is full of typos and mismatched formatting too. Not that I imagine it matters to a judge, but still a poor show.

In terms of the WS contents it is echoing their claim that I entered a contract by entering and staying on the land, that I could have read the signage to see the 5 minute limit, or for information about a helpline for payment issues. I spent 5 minutes driving in, parking up and attempting to pay so that wouldn't have been relevant as we would have got to this point anyway. 

One of my exhibits is the entrance, and how the signage is illegible on entry. Their images in their WS don't show the signage in situ, just the car park spaces with lines painted and then the signage as they sent to print, they clearly wanted to omit this as it isn't easily visible.

It also mentions (several times) that an accurate VRM is required, and that is part of the contract. Keying error due to an app that defaulted.

They also included a list of VRMs entered across the various methods on the day, it lists the VRM I ended up entering and paying for.

They've also included the appeal attachments I sent showing the receipt for the app on the day, and their rejection of this appeal. I also don't see how that helps them.

"the costs are to be assed by the presiding judge" - That's a good one, well done claimant.

---

Below is my drafted WS hosted on Dropbox.

I'm currently in the process of re-reading it, alongside the claimant WS and my initial defence.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0indy12jo4393kdv4i5hk/Witness-Statement-draft-v2-PRIVACY.pdf?rlkey=dti1giecxfmrq0k0icoling2a&dl=0

I also found this page on the excelparking website which contains an email address: excelparkingservices.co.uk/contact/

As they didn't provide me an email address in their recent correspondence will I be ok emailing my WS once finalised to the address on that website, which is litigation@excelparking.co.uk?

Coupon-mad

Your last question was already answered today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80289113/#Comment_80289113

I haven't looked at your WS yet. Is it based on the good one by baz, linked in the NEWBIES thread?

Butterycrumpetlover

Thank you. Yes, it's based on the one by baz in the NEWBIES thread.

Coupon-mad

All good except remove Excel v Ms S which is about a keying error; nothing to do with the facts of your case.

1505grandad

Typo  -  "30. I believes this...."

Butterycrumpetlover

Coupon-mad said:

All good except remove Excel v Ms S which is about a keying error; nothing to do with the facts of your case.

Is it not relevant in the sense I appealed to the claimant immediately after they issued the PCN explaining the cause on the day and the differences in VRM, and they denied the appeal anyway?

From paragraph 24.(i).(a) on my WS - Concealed pitfall or trap

"The Government takes the view that the machine should be linked to the ANPR so that it is impossible to buy a ticket without the full registration. There is no commercial justification, fairness or justice in knowingly issuing PCNs for VRM errors which arise from either typos or system glitches (See Exhibit XX-09 a judgement from Excel v Mrs S)"

Excel had the capacity to check if the VRM that defaulted on the smartphone app on the day had entered not just the car park in question but any car park in its systems, and it chose to ignore that instead of prompting me. That is the same for Mrs S, Excel chose not to assist.

1505grandad said:

Typo  -  "30. I believes this...."

Thanks, corrected!

Coupon-mad

No that case is not relevant for general use; only for keying error defence cases.