Excel Parking, Derby - about to prepare defence

sooty86

Hello.

I'm at the point now where I'm about to prepare a defence against Excel Parking in relation to a claimed contravention at their site on Copeland Street, Derby. The following is a summary of how I got here. The purpose of my post is to seek advice from the good people on here - general advice is of course welcomed, but in particular:

1. Is there anything else I should do beyond what I've already done, or intend to do (described below)?
2. Is there anything obvious around which I should build my defence, given the information below?

First things first: I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and the driver. I didn’t read the MSE forum until part way through this process . I point out when I did read it, below.

Received an NTK from Excel, issued 06/06/2023. This sat, unopened, in my letter tray as I thought it was junk mail.

Received another NTK from Excel, marked ‘FINAL REMINDER’, issued 05/07/2023. Upon opening this, found and opened ‘original’ NTK.

I didn’t complain to the retailer (remember, I hadn’t read the MSE Forum advice at this stage). I understand, in any case, that Jumpin Fun - the premises adjacent to this car park - have been unsuccessful in getting such PCNs cancelled.

Appealed through myparkingcharge.co.uk (I still hadn’t read the MSE Forum advice at this stage). My appeal centred on the knowledge that I’d bought a ticket from the machine and displayed it (more detail in the linked SAR response below), despite the NTK stating my contravention as ‘parked without payment of parking tariff’ – more on this later!

Appeal confirmed as being unsuccessful.

At this point, I read the NEWBIES thread – thank you!

Received increasingly aggressive ‘DEMAND FOR PAYMENT’ and ‘PAYMENT DEMAND’ letters from Excel. Did nothing.

Received LBC from Excel. Sent letter to Excel legal department stating that I was seeking debt advice and requesting matter to be put on hold for 30 days. I followed exactly the advice provided on this forum at the time (which appears to have changed slightly since).

Emailed a Subject Access Request, again as per the advice on this forum at the time – the response to which I have redacted and linked here https://www.mediafire.com/file/2fgx981nr3baimn/SAR_redacted.pdf/file (sorry for rubbish file hosting), which hopefully reflects the above summary and provides some additional information. It was only through the SAR response that Excel revealed that I had, in fact, bought a ticket but had done so 16 minutes after entry. I can’t and don’t intend to dispute this fact.

Since then:

Received ‘Notification of Instruction’ from ELMS Legal, instructed by Excel. Interestingly, this is much friendlier in tone than anything received directly from Excel – presumably a deliberate tactic to lure victims into paying up! Did nothing.

Received MCOL. My next steps will be to acknowledge service and prepare a defence using the advice on this forum and anything received in reply to this post.

Thank you in advance,

Sooty

KeithP

sooty86 said:

Received MCOL.

I'll assume that means you have received a Claim Form from the CNBC. 

Please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

sooty86

KeithP said:

sooty86 said:

Received MCOL.

I'll assume that means you have received a Claim Form from the CNBC. 

Please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Hi Keith. That's right. I'm struggling to get to grips with the terminology! 

The issue date is 22 Nov 2023.

Coupon-mad

And please show:

- two pics - both sides - of the NTK, but including all dates showing.  Cover your data.

- a close up of the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) and is this signed off by Elms Legal?

KeithP

sooty86 said:

KeithP said:

sooty86 said:

Received MCOL.

I'll assume that means you have received a Claim Form from the CNBC. 

Please tell us the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Hi Keith. That's right. I'm struggling to get to grips with the terminology! 

The issue date is 22 Nov 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd November, you have until Monday 11th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

sooty86

Here you go, Coupon.

Coupon-mad

Thanks!  I've redacted more info for you:



OK it was issued 3 months after the event, so that NTK was incapable of holding the keeper liable but your appeal admitted to driving, so that's neither here nor there now!

The POC do state the breach, so just use the Template Defence with your facts added to paragraph 3 and show us ONLY the bit you add (we don't want to see the Template Defence itself).

sooty86

Ok, here goes. Be gentle please!

(As an aside: given that the POC in this case DOES state the breach, do the references in the template defence to the inadequacies of the POC (paras 1, 2, 8, 28 of the template defence) remain valid?)

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant was visiting Jumpin Fun Inflatable Park with their seven-year-old child to attend a birthday party of the child’s friend. On arriving at the car park, the Defendant found it to be near capacity and was unable to locate a parking space for several minutes. Having eventually parked, the Defendant attempted to pay for parking but found that the ticket machine was not accepting card payments. The Defendant notes that there was a queue at the ticket machine owing to other persons clearly being unable to make a straightforward payment. The Defendant, being anxious to drop their child at the party on time, proceeded inside to Jumpin Fun without payment for parking. The Defendant remained with their child until such time that the child was settled, which is estimated to have been several minutes. The Defendant then returned to the ticket machine and paid for parking with cash that had been obtained in the meantime. The amount paid by the Defendant was appropriate for the anticipated (and, subsequently, actual) remaining duration of stay.

KeithP

@sooty86, did you file an Acknowledgment of Service before Tuesday this week?

sooty86

KeithP said:

@sooty86, did you file an Acknowledgment of Service before Tuesday this week?

I did Keith, thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes leave all the mentions of generic POC in because the POC is generic!