Excel Parking + ELMS Legal CCBC claim form

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it does, so get the defence signed and emailed tonight!  Eeek, if the AOS has ben rejected there is no AOS. 
Just crack on and she must defend NOW.
_________________

And, please do us, you, your wife and all motorists a real favour:

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you / your wife are.

You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not 'debt' claims, they are extortionate and exaggerated rogue claims and the whole framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol'.  Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, waste Judges' time and frighten consumers, millions of times in recent years.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.  You or your wife could do the submission for that Inquiry.

Hopefully you've done your submission to that Inquiry now?  Or are ready to do it in time?

Thankyou if so!  It's vital we all work together to stop parking cases using the court system as a 'conveyor belt' cheap form of debt collection.

Could you also show us a pic of both sides of the NTK, because the defence that I suggested assumes it was non-compliant with the POFA.

But I realise we never did check the NTK wording yet.  Need to see both sides including all dates showing.  Cover your data.

Seneschel

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it does, so get the defence signed and emailed tonight!  Eeek, if the AOS has ben rejected there is no AOS. 
Just crack on and she must defend NOW.
_________________

And, please do us, you, your wife and all motorists a real favour:

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you / your wife are.

You have a solid case evidence to show the Committee to state that parking claims are not 'debt' claims, they are extortionate and exaggerated rogue claims and the whole framework needs to be removed from the inappropriate 'debt claims pre-action protocol'.  Ideally, parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating, waste Judges' time and frighten consumers, millions of times in recent years.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.  You or your wife could do the submission for that Inquiry.

Hopefully you've done your submission to that Inquiry now?  Or are ready to do it in time?

Thankyou if so!  It's vital we all work together to stop parking cases using the court system as a 'conveyor belt' cheap form of debt collection.

Could you also show us a pic of both sides of the NTK, because the defence that I suggested assumes it was non-compliant with the POFA.

But I realise we never did check the NTK wording yet.  Need to see both sides including all dates showing.  Cover your data.

Hi,

Sorry for the late reply. So we did look at the Inquiry and will have that completed by tonight, we will state pretty much everything you had in that reply about parking firms clogging up the small claims court but I was wondering how much information we need to give on our own case as first hand evidence? I saw they don’t want an entire essay from everyone!

I’ll attach a copy of the NTK in a reply below but as far as everything else, we received our questionnaire which we completed and sent back to all parties. 

Additionally a few days after sending off the questionnaire, we did receive a letter directly from Excel Parking attempting to convince us to accept a lower fine and also informing us that ELMS have ceased acting on their behalf for this case and Excel will now be representing themselves. They obviously didn’t give a reason!

Seneschel

And the NTK, both sides

Coupon-mad

Seneschel said:

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes it does, so get the defence signed and emailed tonight!  Eeek, if the AOS has ben rejected there is no AOS. 
Just crack on and she must defend NOW.
_________________

And, please do us, you, your wife and all motorists a real favour:

Please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare that you / your wife are.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Hopefully you've done your submission to that Inquiry now?  Or are ready to do it in time?

Thankyou if so!  It's vital we all work together to stop parking cases using the court system as a 'conveyor belt' cheap form of debt collection.

Could you also show us a pic of both sides of the NTK, because the defence that I suggested assumes it was non-compliant with the POFA.

But I realise we never did check the NTK wording yet.  Need to see both sides including all dates showing.  Cover your data.

Hi,

Sorry for the late reply. So we did look at the Inquiry and will have that completed by tonight, we will state pretty much everything you had in that reply about parking firms clogging up the small claims court but I was wondering how much information we need to give on our own case as first hand evidence? I saw they don’t want an entire essay from everyone!

Yes I think less is more.

Try to keep it on point to the question.

You don't have to answer them all; important to suggest a new 'parking pre-action protocol' which mirrors the new Statutory Code of Practice coming in for 2024. 

That's something outside of the scope of the DLUHC who I'm working with.  Thus this is mega important!  Need the Justice Committee helping the DLUHC and consumers out.

There won't be a chance like this for years to make the PAP for parking claims match the new Code of Practice.

Clearly a non-POFA NTK as it relies upon an unsupported bare assumption that the keeper was the driver.

Was the Defendant driving that day?

Seneschel

Coupon-mad said:

Seneschel said:

Hi,

Sorry for the late reply. So we did look at the Inquiry and will have that completed by tonight, we will state pretty much everything you had in that reply about parking firms clogging up the small claims court but I was wondering how much information we need to give on our own case as first hand evidence? I saw they don’t want an entire essay from everyone!

Yes I think less is more.

Try to keep it on point to the question.

You don't have to answer them all; important to suggest a new 'parking pre-action protocol' which mirrors the new Statutory Code of Practice coming in for 2024. 

That's something outside of the scope of the DLUHC who I'm working with.  Thus this is mega important!  Need the Justice Committee helping the DLUHC and consumers out.

There won't be a chance like this for years to make the PAP for parking claims match the new Code of Practice.

Clearly a non-POFA NTK as it relies upon an unsupported bare assumption that the keeper was the driver.

Was the Defendant driving that day?

Okay, that all makes sense, I’ll get that submitted then.


No, the defendant wasn’t driving, she’s just the registered keeper but was a passenger that day.

Coupon-mad

Ah yes, and I see the defence covered the fact she's not legally liable because Excel didn't use the PoFA Schedule 4 keeper liability provisions.

I'd mention this if you can, in your submission to the Justice Committee:

Two Circuit Judges have found against Mr Renshaw-Smith's companies Excel and VCS on this point, on appeal, and yet they are STILL funnelling claims at registered keepers and pretending they can just "assume the keeper was driving".  This is the sort of rubbish that's clogging up the courts and will NEVER win at a hearing, utterly meritless as confirmed in these 2 appeal cases: 

Here's VCS v Ian Edward:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w0k19zxzlpf9eumu68u7b/VCS-v-EDWARDS-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=5t2gilebrjx7g0d6jmy32lou4&dl=0

And here's Excel v Smith:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfx25wgm3nlqkyc/Claim No. C0DP9C4E:M17X062.pdf?dl=0

And yet EXCEL and VCS continue to IMHO mislead keepers and the courts about assumed liability.