Excel Parking/DCB Legal Court Claims

Car1980

See
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anya-prasad_i-got-fined-11k-over-a-darlington-five-minute-activity-7311332961340043266-hr4E

Can you show us your witness statement and theirs (with sensitive details redacted)? I have a feeling it might be insufficient if Excel have paid the fee after all the bother they've been in with identical cases.

Might be worth submitting a supplementary WS.

Coupon-mad

Or you could just file & serve a skeleton argument, citing Hannah Robinson's case and s62 - 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, stating that any term to carry out an obligation on foot, once inside gym premises (within xx minutes of first driving through the entrance in moving traffic) is clearly unfair under the CRA and serves no legitimate purpose.

So, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished and this charge is an unenforceable penalty.

As established in the Hannah Robinson '5 minute rule' case last month, there is no legitimate interest here because there is no loss and no commercial justification to penalise gym users who take longer but still input their correct VRM whilst on site. That is sufficient to prove authorised gym patronage, regardless of an arbitrary time limit. Even if that term was in BIG text on massive uncomplicated signs (which it wasn't) that term is indisputably an unfair & unjustified burden on the consumer so it cannot stand.

babtunde345

They have added this to their exhibits showing the days I have put my reg in (when I go to the gym) and have highlighted the day I got the ticket. Essentially I put it in by accident at the end of my workout. They gave me the ticket at 17:00 but i had put it in too late as it put it in at 19:03 @Coupon-mad

Car1980

I don't think that helps them. It just shows that you always comply with the terms. Trying to claim on the basis of a one-off just highlights how they are running a Sword of Damocles setup and makes them just look unreasonable.

Castle

babtunde345 said:

They have added this to their exhibits showing the days I have put my reg in (when I go to the gym) and have highlighted the day I got the ticket. Essentially I put it in by accident at the end of my workout. They gave me the ticket at 17:00 but i had put it in too late as it put it in at 19:03 @Coupon-mad

Unless they put a ticket on your car, they didn't give you a ticket at 17.00.

Coupon-mad

 

babtunde345 said:

The other claim I have just submitted my defence. These are separate claims of around 230£ each. 

@Coupon-mad, they have attached 57 pages of evidence, including signs, when I put my registration number in e.t.c. Its hard for me to actually defend myself as I am technically in the wrong, but I just put my Car Registration Number too late. 

I could not find any cases similar to mine. Unfortunately Excel parking has paid the hearing fee . I have read the advice on the newbies post regarding the hearing.

I had put in the reg number late in the machine*** they have showed proof in the WS of the time I have put in my reg into the machine and they have stated it was too late

Coupon-mad said:

Haha. There's no time limit. If there was it's an unfair term. Please show us this submission!

You can use the ban on the 5 minute rule in your favour but I need the page with this stated to show to Government please.

babtunde345 said:

They have added this to their exhibits showing the days I have put my reg in (when I go to the gym) and have highlighted the day I got the ticket. Essentially I put it in by accident at the end of my workout. They gave me the ticket at 17:00 but i had put it in too late as it put it in at 19:03

Coupon-mad said:

you could just file & serve a skeleton argument, citing Hannah Robinson's case and s62 - 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, stating that any term to carry out an obligation on foot, once inside gym premises (within xx minutes of first driving through the entrance in moving traffic) is clearly unfair under the CRA and serves no legitimate purpose.

So, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished and this charge is an unenforceable penalty.

As established in the Hannah Robinson '5 minute rule' case last month, there is no legitimate interest here because there is no loss and no commercial justification to penalise gym users who take longer but still input their correct VRM whilst on site. That is sufficient to prove authorised gym patronage, regardless of an arbitrary time limit. Even if that term was in BIG text on massive uncomplicated signs (which it wasn't) that term is indisputably an unfair & unjustified burden on the consumer so it cannot stand.

Car1980 said:

I don't think that helps them. It just shows that you always comply with the terms. Trying to claim on the basis of a one-off just highlights how they are running a Sword of Damocles setup and makes them just look unreasonable.

Exactly!

That printout shows they know this car is exempt (gym user) so even if this OP hadn't remembered to enter the VRM at all, this list shows there's no legitimate interest in penalising this regular gym patron.

But the OP did enter the VRM after their workout and before leaving!

This is EXACTLY like a 5 minute rule case and we'll see more like this one, if the MHCLG don't completely ban all pursuit - ALL LITIGATION - of patently unfair (Consumer Credit Act 2015) crap like this utter drivel.

MHCLG: please read this:

The 5 minute rule ban must be worded to ban ANY 5 minute/other time-bound rule to carry out ANY obligation whilst the vehicle is on site, .

AND to ban litigation of old cases that are caught by this ban because they were always in breach of the CRA.

babtunde345 

please can you show a close up screenshot of the actual paragraph where Excel's weasel witness (is it JB?) says in his submission THIS MONTH that they are suing you for 'inputting the VRM too late'?

And did DCB Legal issue two duplicate facts claims for similar PCNs? What dates were on the 2 claims? What's happened with claim 2? 

babtunde345

hi @Coupon-mad, sure. I can show you it. My second claim has just been allocated to the court, im expecting that to go to a hearing too. It has been scheduled for the 30th july, with the 2nd july as the date the hearing fee has to be paid. I have not recieved the WS for the second claim but I assume I will soon. Exhibit 4 is the document I have attached above.

babtunde345

@Coupon-mad @Castle @Car1980, I did recieve a physical ticket. The reason I did not appeal was because I was not at the address due to me being a medical student, I was situated on a different placement which is about an hour away, so I was not living at my registered address. It is signed by JB

babtunde345

I have got an email from the pure gym stating i was there at the time at the gym, but they are not disputing that

Coupon-mad

Their argument about you putting your VRM in at the gym "too late" makes no sense at all! They say therefore you should have PAID but there was nothing to pay for exempt gym members. JB's rubbish is absurd.

Were both claims filed by DCB Legal, within days of each other and with mirror image POC about similar PCNs from the same year, same car, same location?

Did you include Henderson v Henderson in your second claim defence? It's an abuse to file two claims when with just a tad of due diligence, they could have consolidated the matching data subject files and not doubled the burden for you and the court service.

Abject scammery IMHO.