Excel Parking Charge

Luc1fer

Coupon-mad said:

All of the above is relevant.  The only thing I'd disagree with is this (below) because the time taken to download an app is likely to be more than5 minutes and is entirely reasonable, not:

"entirely down to human error"

You can either use the Template Defence or parts of it if you can confidently word it better.   We would recommend not removing chunks of it which are all there for a reason.

Does the POC state the breach?

Is the claim filed by Elms Legal or VCS or Excel themselves?

Thanks for the above. I'll discount the human error factor.

The POC states that the vehicle parked without a "Valid Pay & Display Ticket for VRM".
Issued by Elms Legal.

That's it:



Yet, there was a valid "Pay & Display" ticket, albeit outside the 5 minute "consideration" window.
Based on the formatting alone, this is no different to any other bulk litigation I've seen on here.

Cowboys! Time to make a mockery of them I hope.

I'll edit the template as it's very good & my civil law isn't my strength :P

Thanks

Coupon-mad

This is a well known cash cow site.

Exact same as this recent claim re Jumpin' Fun at Copeland Street (defence suggested is on page two):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6488943/excel-parking-derby-about-to-prepare-defence/p1

and here is another Copeland Street case seen right through to a hearing and won:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6428772/second-of-two-claims-from-excel-now-at-ws-stage/p1

Le_Kirk

Was it a car park where one had to input the VRM into the PDT or the parking app?  The POC states it is for "without purchasing a valid Pay & Display ticket for VRM".

Luc1fer

Le_Kirk said:

Was it a car park where one had to input the VRM into the PDT or the parking app?  The POC states it is for "without purchasing a valid Pay & Display ticket for VRM".

The car park took either card or app payment where you input VRM, no ticket was printed in this case.
I'm unsure whether this is the same for card/cash payment.

I'll be arguing the POC around this wording as it's criminally vague.

There was a ticket puchased, albeit late so their POC is baseless, as is their entire case.

Thanks,

Le_Kirk

Are you sure you used the correct VRM in the app and the correct car park location code?

Luc1fer

Le_Kirk said:

Are you sure you used the correct VRM in the app and the correct car park location code?

Yes, car park has been used previously. 

Luc1fer

Hi all,

I've uploaded our first draft defence for your review if at all possible to OneDrive:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuyN5BrCmW0chqxnQpA_KK_hCYKKlw?e=5qcaID

Thanks very much in advance.

Coupon-mad

Luc1fer said:

Hi all,

I've uploaded our first draft defence for your review if at all possible to OneDrive:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuyN5BrCmW0chqxnQpA_KK_hCYKKlw?e=5qcaID

Thanks very much in advance.

That's very good except:

- remove 'and frank' from para 7.

- remove 15 unless the Defendant is disabled

- remove the whole of 16 because the POFA Schedule 4 is only relevant to a keeper, not to an admitted driver 

Luc1fer

Coupon-mad said:

Luc1fer said:

Hi all,

I've uploaded our first draft defence for your review if at all possible to OneDrive:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuyN5BrCmW0chqxnQpA_KK_hCYKKlw?e=5qcaID

Thanks very much in advance.

That's very good except:

- remove 'and frank' from para 7.

- remove 15 unless the Defendant is disabled

- remove the whole of 16 because the POFA Schedule 4 is only relevant to a keeper, not to an admitted driver 

Brilliant, thanks for the feedback.

Anything additional that you can think of that should be included or is this now ready to file?
New version:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuyN5BrCmW0chqxzuAM_T1xqulRpxQ?e=OhI9WY

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

I'd bring the word 'Conclusion' down a line so it heads the last page but that's my only last pedantic suggestion!