Excel Parking + ELMS Legal - Claim form from Money Claims Online received

B789

Much better. Whilst the original language used was archaic, it did nothing for defence itself.

Nothing wrong with archaic language, especially if you enjoy Ernest K Gann's book, Fate is the Hunter.

milkybk

Hi - Just posting to say I recently defeated Excel and Elms Legal in court for a case from 2017 (both winning a set aside hearing and then having their claim dismissed at a later hearing, with costs awarded to me). Whilst the location of the alleged charge is different to mine, some of the circumstances are the same, e.g. poorly lit signage. I'll leave a link to my thread here and happy to help in anyway possible.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279209/excel-set-aside-won-case-won-excel-defeated-again#latest

Lokisan88

milkybk said:

Hi - Just posting to say I recently defeated Excel and Elms Legal in court for a case from 2017 (both winning a set aside hearing and then having their claim dismissed at a later hearing, with costs awarded to me). Whilst the location of the alleged charge is different to mine, some of the circumstances are the same, e.g. poorly lit signage. I'll leave a link to my thread here and happy to help in anyway possible.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279209/excel-set-aside-won-case-won-excel-defeated-again#latest

Thank you very much for this, I'll have a look at the thread to see if there is anything I can use. 

Lokisan88

I am now happy with my defence, I redacted the points as suggested and changed slightly point 7 and 8. I deleted the majority of previous point 8 but I kept the mention to the gace period and inverted the two point so it traks logically. 

I'm posting it again for reference to other users 

1 and 2 as template. 

3. It is acknowledged that on November 24, 2022, the Defendant's motor vehicle entered the County House Car Park located in Nottingham, NG1 1HN. Upon arrival, the car park was at full capacity, forcing the Defendant to wait for an available parking space for a duration of 10 minutes. As no parking spaces became vacant during this time, the Defendant ultimately decided to leave the car park without having parked or left the vehicle in question.

Insufficient Signage Visibility.

4. The International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice specifically delineates, in Schedule 1 under the title of "Signage," the following: “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting.”

5. Signage at this site is unlit and in minuscule text. The Claimant's case is likely to rely upon alleged "clear display" of the terms and conditions. This would be false and misleading. The situation at this location is made worse by poor placement of the sparse signs which are at an angle on approach, cannot be read from a car and do not meet the statutory requirements for prominence and 'adequate notice'.  Any terms and conditions were not seen, let alone agreed. There was no fair opportunity to learn that the car park was subject to any restrictions.

6. Based on these previous points, it is clear that a contract could not have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant because the necessary conditions for forming a contract were not met.

Failure to Prove Breach of Contract

7. Under section 13.2 of the IPC Code of Practice, a grace period is established as follow: “Before a Parking Charge is issued Motorists must be allowed a Grace Period save and except when 13.3 is applicable. A Grace Period is a 10 minutes period at the end of a Permitted Period of Parking.”

8. Section 13.3, of the same IPC Code of Practice states: “A Grace Period is not required when the Permitted Period of Parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site makes it clear to the Motorist, in a prominent font, that no Grace Period applies on that land.” The signs present within the County House Car Park do not expressly reference the non-existence of a Grace Period, on the contrary they explicitly indicates a Grace Period of 5 minutes. The duration of the stay in question, comfortably, falls within the Grace period delineated above.

rest of the points as per  template.

In terms of sending the Defence there is not benefit in delaying the submission, is there? Can I send it, following the guide from bargepole and KeithP, as soon as I'm ready?

Coupon-mad

I think remove 7 and 8 and the sub-heading you added above.  The latter in particular, really doesn't help because you are saying that the sign says 5 minutes but admitting you were on site for ten.

The bit above it is very good. You didn't park!

Submit the signed & dated PDF defence as per the Template Defence first 12 steps. Please read those 12 steps now so we (you and us) don't have to waste time talking about the tedious first letter and how to fill in the DQ.

Lokisan88

Coupon-mad said:

I think remove 7 and 8 and the sub-heading you added above.  The latter in particular, really doesn't help because you are saying that the sign says 5 minutes but admitting you were on site for ten.

The bit above it is very good. You didn't park!

Submit the signed & dated PDF defence as per the Template Defence first 12 steps. Please read those 12 steps now so we (you and us) don't have to waste time talking about the tedious first letter and how to fill in the DQ.

It makes sense. I'll delete 7, 8 and the sub-heading and I'll send it today.

Thank you for the advice, I already seen and read the 12 steps so I'm aware of what's coming   

I guess I'll be back for my WS 

Lokisan88

A bit of a dumb question.

I just sent the N180 to the court and the Claiman't legals via email. Elms Legal repliedwith an automatic email saying that they confirm the receip of my email but at the same time the email contains the following statement:
"Please be advised that we do not accept service of any court documents via email and please serve any court documents to the following postal address",

with their address attached. Do you think I need to post the N180 via ordinary mail too? O shall I just leave it to them to sort out as I won't have any proof of sending the letter?

I'm asking as I don't have a printer and it seems that on the forum it is advised to send documents via email rather than post them. 

On top of that I don't really want to do it if I don't have to 

B789

If their email says they have received it... then they have received it. It matters not that they try to put hurdles before you.

Coupon-mad

Yes it's fine.  Soon Elms Legal will step away from the case, as always, and the case will continue without a solicitor.

You will know that from your reading of other Excel or VCS threads.

Lokisan88

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it's fine.  Soon Elms Legal will step away from the case, as always, and the case will continue without a solicitor.

You will know that from your reading of other Excel or VCS threads.

I'm hoping this is what they are going to do. 

I received this letter from them, though, which says that the amount claimed has been paid.
Obviously I never paid anything or stated that i had in my defence and there isn't any form N9B attached to the letter. It's confusing but it looks like it's happened to other users (like mae2uuk) but I can't see from their thead what they have done about it.
I searched around the forum but it looks like nobody has actually ever given an exact answer to what this letter is. 
Is it a mistake? Shall I ignore it?