Excel parking fine defence stage

Judjules

Hi, latest from the court any thoughts? 
Thanks. 

LDast

As previously, it is a copy of an order sent to the claimant. It would certainly appear that they are being given an incredible amount of leeway. According to the orders, they have not responded to the defence and didn’t return their DQ on time.

Coupon-mad

Show us the reply to defence when it comes.

Judjules

Here is their defence 

Snakes_Belly

Have they provided a copy of the VRNs on that day? There were horrendous problems with two car parks run by Excel at the time and many of the transgressions were for VRN's that didn't match. They have also been known to tamper with information. 

Judjules

Yes they have 

Coupon-mad

How many mistakes were in the VRM?  Just two digits swapped with each other?

They don't seem to have responded to the accusation of disability discrimination by failing to make a reasonable adjustment. They also failed to carry out human checks to avoid issuing an unfair PCN for a minor keying error.

About 10 years or more ago, I recall Watchdog investigated Excel for what they were doing re keying errors.  This was when Excel were in the BPA and there was a BBC article quoting Excel and the BPA both agreeing that 'human checks' should be done to identify near-match VRMs and PCNs should not be issued.

Don't suppose anyone can find that BBC Watchdog page? Not sure if it still exists.

Judjules

Hi, I just entered 3 letters that was part of the vrm and it accepted it. I've got the ticket to prove I paid 

LDast

If you are allowed to respond to the claimants reply to the defence, here are some pointers to use:

Claimant's Misleading Characterisation of the Defence:

The Defendant notes the Claimant's attempt in paragraph 3 of their response to disparage the Defence by suggesting it is “a generic one sourced from the internet.” This assertion is entirely unfounded and irrelevant to the substance of the Defence. The Defendant is a layperson with no legal training or experience. As such, they have had to rely on all available resources, including publicly accessible sources of legal information to present their case in a coherent and structured manner.

In contrast, the Claimant is represented by professional legal advisers, and yet the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) were deficient and lacking in detail, necessitating the Defendant to infer or guess the exact nature of the Claim. It is unjust for the Claimant to criticise the Defendant for having to rely on widely accessible resources when they themselves have submitted what can only be described as woefully inadequate PoC, which have failed to provide the necessary information to understand the full case against them.

Deficiencies in the Particulars of Claim:

While the Claimant claims to have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the Defendant strongly contests this assertion. The Claimant’s PoC failed to fulfil the broader requirements of CPR 16.4 in several key areas:

• CPR 16.4(1)(b) requires the inclusion of any matters that the Claimant is relying upon, such as interest or damages. The Claimant’s PoC failed to sufficiently specify or break down any such costs, particularly the inflated £170 claimed, which still remains unexplained.
• CPR 16.4(2) requires the claim for interest to specify the percentage rate claimed, the dates between which interest is claimed, and the total amount of interest claimed. The Claimant’s PoC failed to include any such detail as do the response to the defence.
• CPR 16.4(3) requires the claim to specify whether it is for a specified or unspecified amount, and if for a specified amount, to state the exact sum. The PoC only vaguely mentioned "contractual costs and interest" without any proper breakdown or specification, leaving the Defendant unclear on the total sum being claimed or how it was calculated.

Claimant’s Failure to Properly Particularise the Case:

The Claimant's PoC provided nothing more than a sparse and generic template that failed to adequately explain the basis of their claim in any meaningful way. The PoC lacked sufficient detail, making it difficult for the Defendant to understand exactly what was being claimed and why. This placed the Defendant in a position where they were forced to respond to vague and incomplete allegations.

If the Defendant has relied on publicly available resources, it is only because they were left in the dark due to the inadequacies of the Claimant’s PoC. The Defendant submits that the Claimant’s PoC were non-compliant with CPR 16.4 in several material respects, and that the Defence, regardless of its sources, has been made in good faith based on the Defendant’s own knowledge and research.

Good Faith in Presenting the Defence:

The Defendant asserts that every point made in their Defence comes from an honest belief based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Any assistance or structure provided by legal sources, whether from the internet or elsewhere, is necessary for a layperson to ensure that their Defence is correctly presented. The Defence is therefore far from "generic"; it is a carefully considered response to the particular circumstances of this claim and the deficiencies in the PoC as were provided by the Claimant.

Misuse of MCOL Character Restriction as an Excuse:

In paragraph 6 of the Claimants response to the order, the Claimant’s reliance on the argument that the Money Claim Online (MCOL) system restricts them to only 1080 characters is not a valid justification for the inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC) they provided. While MCOL does indeed have a character limit for initial claims, there was nothing to prevent the Claimant from filing further and more detailed PoC within 14 days of the claim being issued, as per CPR 16.4. The Claimant’s failure to do so is entirely their responsibility, and they cannot use the MCOL character limit as a reason for the deficient PoC.

While the Claimant claims to have met the requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), the Defendant submits that the PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4 in several critical respects:

• Cause of Action (Paragraph 6a): While the PoC do barely mention a cause of action—‘parked without displaying a valid P&D ticket for the VRM’—this is insufficient without further details about the exact terms of the alleged contract and how the Defendant’s actions supposedly breached those terms. The Claimant has not provided any clear contractual basis for the claim.

• Location of the Vehicle (Paragraph 6b): The PoC only reference "Copeland Street" without identifying the town or specific location or even a post code. "Copeland Street" could be in any number of towns or villages across the UK. The absence of further detail made it impossible for the Defendant to know the precise location of the alleged parking incident. This lack of specificity failed to provide the Defendant with the necessary facts to properly respond.

• Contractual Term or Clause (Paragraph 6c): The PoC failed to mention any specific contractual term or clause that the Claimant relied on. The Defendant was left to guess which term of the alleged contract was breached. A mere mention of the cause of action (failure to display a valid P&D ticket) is not enough—there must be some reference to the actual clause in the contract that the Claimant is alleging was breached.

• Damages: There was and still is no factual or legal explanation of the basis for the claim for damages. The Claimant vaguely mentioned “contractual costs and interest,” but there was and still is no explanation of how these sums are calculated or justified. The Defendant has the right to know the basis for any alleged damages being claimed, and this failure leaves the original PoC and the subsequent response to the the defence lacking in legal substance.

• Sums Pleaded: The PoC did not and still do not provide a precise calculation of the sum being claimed, particularly with regard to statutory interest. The Claimant has failed to specify the date from which interest began accruing, the percentage rate claimed, and the total amount of interest. The Defendant cannot be expected to defend a claim where the sums pleaded are incomplete and vague.

Claimant's Misinterpretation of CPR 16 PD 7.5:

In paragraph 7 of the Claimant’s response, they reference CPR 16 PD 7.5, which concerns claims based on agreements or contracts. However, the Claimant failed to provide a clear and complete explanation of how this applied to the current case. Additionally, there is no paragraph 8 in the Claimant’s response, which would have presumably provided clarity on this point.

Failure to Provide the Contract in Accordance with CPR 16 PD 7.5:The Claimant failed to comply with CPR 16 PD 7.5, which requires the contract relied upon to be attached to the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Where the contract is not written, the Claimant is required to set out its terms in detail within the PoC. The Claimant did neither. They rely on a supposed contract formed by conduct (i.e., through the act of parking), but no specific terms of the contract were included or referenced. The Defendant was left without any clear understanding of which terms of the contract are being relied upon, further frustrating the Defendant’s ability to present a full and proper Defence

Lack of Time and Precise Location:

The fact that the Claimant asserts in paragraph 10 of their response that this was a contract by conduct does not absolve them from including essential details in the PoC, such as the time and precise location where the conduct took place. As already mentioned, the vague reference to "Copeland Street" is insufficient and could apply to any number of locations across the UK. The PoC should have included the exact location of the car park and the date and time of the alleged breach of contract. The Claimant's failure to include these details is a serious omission, as it deprives the Defendant of the ability to adequately respond.

I could go on but the response to the court order is weak at best but inherently evasive and contradictory.

Coupon-mad

You don't respond to a Reply to Defence.