Excel Parking Charge

turtlefeet23

Hi all,

I'm currently fighting a parking charge from Excel Parking as I had payed late for a parking session (still stayed for less than the length of the session I payed for) and they did not accept that as an excuse. Before discovering this site I did the "usual" process of appealing to Excel and then to the IAS (both declined even with proof of payment and photographic evidence of unclear signage - as you'd expect). A couple days ago I received a "Demand for Payment" letter with a greatly increased charge due to "Debt Collection Costs" (No debt collectors have contacted me) with the threats of court action if I didn't pay.

Yesterday I wrote an email complaint to the landowner in hopes that they can provide assistance as the Newbies page advised me to.

In the case of this being unsuccessful, what should I do/look out for in order to be able to continue fighting/win this case?

Apologies if I have missed anything obvious but I would greatly appreciate some advice from some experts in this.

Many thanks!

Umkomaas

Ignore debt collectors, they are toothless. 

Can we see a redacted copy of the Notice to Keeper (the very first letter sent to you by Excel please. In that context you might be  interested in reading this:

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/excel-parking-service-limited-nbspfaces-defeat-in-manchester-county-court

There are one or two other similar Excel cases listed in their blog section of the website. 

turtlefeet23

Of course.  NTK :

Trainerman

See what the real experts say, but that looks as if it sneakily tries to appear PoFA compliant, yet isn't. If so, then as long as they do not know the driver, they can go whistle

Umkomaas

Trainerman said:

See what the real experts say, but that looks as if it sneakily tries to appear PoFA compliant, yet isn't. If so, then as long as they do not know the driver, they can go whistle

Yep, the very thing that's just cost Excel £829.19 at the hands of Jacob Yamba working with Contestor Legal Services. Should this result in a court claim it might be worth the OP checking out what Contestor could do for him/her. I don't know their terms or what any of it involves, but I'm sure the OP can ask the pertinent questions and determine whether they can help. 

Explorer87

Trainerman said:

See what the real experts say, but that looks as if it sneakily tries to appear PoFA compliant, yet isn't. If so, then as long as they do not know the driver, they can go whistle

I quite understand what you mean?

Coupon-mad

It's not POFA compliant.

milkybk

Explorer87 said:

Trainerman said:

See what the real experts say, but that looks as if it sneakily tries to appear PoFA compliant, yet isn't. If so, then as long as they do not know the driver, they can go whistle

I quite understand what you mean?

PoFA is the Protection of Freedom Act. It requires companies to conform to certain rules/standards when issuing charges and other things (if they want to purse the keeper, rather than the driver), such as signage within the car park, which most of these parking companies don't meet. PoFA failings are a part of most defences during the claim hearing process. If you take a look at the templates or a couple recent threads you'll see it mentioned.

B789

I've just noticed something that may invalidate the PoFA compliance of any IPC member... The DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges state in Section 15, Appeals:

15.4 Where tickets are issued by members of an ATA, a driver or registered keeper who wishes to make representations must do so within 28 days to avoid the landholder escalating the matter. All tickets issued by members of an ATA must contain details of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.

Now I haven't found anything quite as specific in the actual PoFA yet, but as all IPC members only allow 21 days to submit an appeal, technically, they are breaching PoFA by not allowing an appeal within the full 28 days. Maybe I'm wrong and I would like to see others interpretation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

B789

Just to add... I found the relevant section of PoFA that applies, I think:

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

If an IPC member initiates any action to recover an unpaid PCN before 28 days after the date of the NtK (not the date of the alleged contravention), that invalidates their right to rely on PoFA to make the RK liable.

B789

The above observations may be academic insofar as this OPs NtK which is not PoFA compliant anyway.