Excel Parking Charge

Coupon-mad

Remove this (below) because part of your defence in December/Jan will be saying the Claim doesn't state the alleged contravention.  So don't state details and show that you know what this is all about at LBC stage:

Given that the driver of the vehicle is alleged to have failed to make payment for the duration of the stay at the aforementioned car park, despite myself providing you with information to the contrary showing that the duration of stay of the vehicle within the car park was entirely covered by the purchased tariff (of which you deny was obtained), you have continued to suggest that I (as the registered keeper) may be liable for such a “Parking Charge” – as stated this debt is denied and

Also get rid of hearsay links to Contestor Legal and instead use the words you find when you search the forum for:

Gargan Smith 2017.

Le_Kirk

turtlefeet23 said:

Dear Sir or Madam

I write with In reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 17th of October, but not received until the 21st of October, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

This already Reducing the available time in this way tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggest that you should date your letters closer to or on their actual posting date, Lest lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

Couple of suggestions if I may. You seem to have started in a disjointed manner, hopefully you take these suggestions in the spirit they are given - assistance.

turtlefeet23

Thanks so much for the feedback, have made amendments below. If there's anything else that could be improved please do feel free to pick it apart. Cheers!

Dear Sir or Madam

 

Without prejudice

 

I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 17th of October, but not received until the 21st of October, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggest that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the 15th July 2023. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the 11th July 2023 and “Contravention Date” as the 27th June 2023.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 14th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 18th day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently Excel Parking Services Limited has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and another parking organisation LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

A subject access request has been issued separately to your data protection department.

I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this correspondence.

 

Yours faithfully

XXXXX

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"Without prejudice"

and this weak ending doesn't help at all.   You should tell them to cease and desist and give them a deadline to cancel this farce:

"I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this correspondence".

 

turtlefeet23

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

"Without prejudice"

and this weak ending doesn't help at all.   You should tell them to cease and desist and give them a deadline to cancel this farce:

"I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this correspondence".

 

Thanks for this, have done so. If the wording of the cease and desist part can be improved do let me know. I have also pointed out in my court case references that the 2nd case involves VCS which is a sister company to Excel.

Dear Sir or Madam

 

I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 17th of October, but not received until the 21st of October, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggest that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the 15th July 2023. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the 11th July 2023 and “Contravention Date” as the 27th June 2023.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 14th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 18th day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently Excel Parking Services Limited has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

A subject access request has been issued separately to your data protection department.

I request that you cease and desist with further contact immediately save for a confirmation of discontinuance within 30 calendar days otherwise I will pursue a claim of harassment against your company.

Yours faithfully

XXXXX

Coupon-mad

This one I wrote has more about the fact you are not obliged to nominate a driver, and it has a stronger ending - and it worked:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80335688/#Comment_80335688

turtlefeet23

Coupon-mad said:

This one I wrote has more about the fact you are not obliged to nominate a driver, and it has a stronger ending - and it worked:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80335688/#Comment_80335688

Thank you, have inserted it as seen below. Have also removed the part about the SAR as I don't see it as necessary.

Dear Sir or Madam

 

I write with reference to a “Letter before Claim” or “LBC” reference (XXXXX) dated 17th of October, but not received until the 21st of October, informing me of a 30-day window in which to take action.

Reducing the available time this way already tells me the kind of unscrupulous people I'm dealing with and suggest that you should date your letters closer to their actual posting date, lest it be seen as trying to manipulate a system and additionally cause unwarranted stress, fear and anxiety over alleged debts.

I fully and robustly deny any debt alleged regarding the above references, however I am currently seeking debt advice and demand that the case must be put on hold for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I also intend to challenge the legitimacy and fairness of the inflated “Parking Charge” of £170 which has been wholly proven in the courts to be an abuse of process and an unfair and unjust addition without any grounds nor reasoning to its purpose.

I note that you are relying on pursuance of the alleged debt to the “Registered Keeper” of the vehicle. I wish to remind you of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 4) which states:

“(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (section 9, subsection 5) which states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

I draw your attention to the original “Notice to Keeper” delivered (XXXXX) to myself on the 15th July 2023. In this letter are the particulars “Issue Date (printed)” as the 11th July 2023 and “Contravention Date” as the 27th June 2023.

As per the above, the letter has been printed on the 14th day following the alleged contravention and as such, is not compliant with the “relevant period” and as such I received the letter on the 18th day from the date of the contravention.

The letter is believed to have been posted 2nd Class to my address so could not have arrived sooner than the 14 day cut-off.

The PCN has clearly failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA and consequently Excel Parking Services Limited has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXX.

I wish to refer you to recent court cases in which Excel Parking Services Limited and Vehicle Control Services Limited, a sister company to Excel, LOST based on this very above stated fact.

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded, and the Claim was dismissed.

I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.  The PCN is not effective to transfer liability to myself (the keeper) because it does not comply with the conditions for a notice to keeper in Schedule 4 of the POFA.

I require you to cancel the PCN and erase my data.

If you persist in processing and/or sharing my data and in the event of Excel Parking Services Limited filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and/or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

Yours faithfully

XXXXX

Coupon-mad

Very good.  Much more punchy.

turtlefeet23

Thanks for your help - would you say it's ready to send off? - I assume to Elms Legal in this case

Le_Kirk

turtlefeet23 said:

Thanks for your help - would you say it's ready to send off? - I assume to Elms Legal in this case

To whoever sent the LBC.