Excel Parking/DCBLegal - Powis Street, Woolwich

Coupon-mad

You've missed a trick if their case is based on the '5 minute rule' because that was banned in February.

Search the forum for

Defence 5 minute rule wonders mine 

CheapAsFork2025

Coupon-mad said:

You've missed a trick if their case is based on the '5 minute rule' because that was banned in February.

Search the forum for

Defence 5 minute rule wonders mine 

Superstar!! Have added your two defence points:

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 03/09/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. 

3.2. The Defendant denies the allegation stated as “Reason: 101 – Failure to Purchase the Parking Tariff for the Registration Mark of the Vehicle On-Site and/or Within the Time Allowed.” The Defendant provided the original ‘Pay and Display’ ticket to the Claimant as part of the first appeal, demonstrating that a valid ticket was held at the time of the alleged contravention. This serves as clear evidence that the parking tariff was paid and complied with. 

3.3.  It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5 minute rule' which has been in the national news. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 minute time limit' hidden term, is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant. 

3.4. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year".  That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. This Claimant has reportedly told irate MPs last month that all such cases have been dropped, due to the adverse publicity.  One wonders why they think they can pursue this one. 
 

Is this okay?  , Also, just confirming whether i need those bolded headings between numbered paragraphs?

Le_Kirk

Your numbering is slightly wrong - where is 3.1?

Coupon-mad

CheapAsFork2025 said:

Hope I redacted everything necessary! I completed the MCOL on March 3rd.

CheapAsFork2025 said:

I had actually paid for the parking and am still in possession of the physical printed ticket; I figured there was no way I didn't beat that appeal.

As you can imagine, I was wrong.

Turns out; similarly to all the other reviews under the car parks google page, I didn't purchase it fast enough (go figure). 

Coupon-mad said:

You've missed a trick if their case is based on the '5 minute rule' because that was banned in February. 

...that'll kill it before the hearing. Did you read last night's thread about Hannah Robinson's £11,000 claim and how it backfired horribly on Excel last week?!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6598307/10k-pro-bono-costs-order-against-excel

Read it! Get your defence in NOW.

CheapAsFork2025

Le_Kirk said:

Your numbering is slightly wrong - where is 3.1?

You're right, I did quadruple check but somehow missed this. 

Had to submit as it, due to time constraints.

Is that a large problem?

CheapAsFork2025

Coupon-mad said:

CheapAsFork2025 said:

Hope I redacted everything necessary! I completed the MCOL on March 3rd.

CheapAsFork2025 said:

I had actually paid for the parking and am still in possession of the physical printed ticket; I figured there was no way I didn't beat that appeal.

As you can imagine, I was wrong.

Turns out; similarly to all the other reviews under the car parks google page, I didn't purchase it fast enough (go figure). 

Coupon-mad said:

You've missed a trick if their case is based on the '5 minute rule' because that was banned in February. 

...that'll kill it before the hearing. Did you read last night's thread about Hannah Robinson's £11,000 claim and how it backfired horribly on Excel last week?!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6598307/10k-pro-bono-costs-order-against-excel

Read it! Get your defence in NOW.

Read and submitted; however, as pointed out by Kirk above, I messed up the numbering somehow. Do you think that'll be an issue?

Coupon-mad

Not at all.

CheapAsFork2025

Happy May All!

The fun continues,

I have very recently received the claimants N180DQ but am yet to receive mine. Happy to wait as instructed, just curious as to whether I need to pay mind to the "Contact us within 7 days to make a settlement". As I type this, i recognise I do not want to make a settlement. So assuming I sit tight, and wait for my DQ from CNBC?

Will this also arrive by email?, don't want to have missed anything!

Coupon-mad

No, it comes by post. Sit tight. Takes weeks.