Excel Parking/DCB Legal Court Claims

babtunde345

I have not filed the second defense yet. I will use this argument in the hearing. I agree, its nonsense, and by inputting my VRM late they are not at any loss @Coupon-mad

babtunde345

exact same POC, exact same solictors, exact same situation 

babtunde345

same car and same year

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Don't forget the skelly as above for THIS claim.

babtunde345

Can I still file documents? I thought after the deadline for the WS, that was it @Coupon-mad. Or shall i cite this in the hearing. Ive actually never heard about this case otherwise I would have put it in the WS. Its crazy. Excel are !!!!!!

Coupon-mad

I think you need to google what a skeleton argument is. I didn't write all that for fun!

  

There's no deadline. It's used by parties to cite the legal arguments - to narrow the dispute and assist the court - and can be added now.

DO NOT just bring something new to the hearing that hasn't been filed & served.

babtunde345

Got it, had a google and it makes sense. Im assuming I need to file this with DCB legal too? @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

That's what 'file & serve' means!

babtunde345

IN THE XXXXX COUNTY COURT

CASE OR CLAIM NO: XXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD

-and-

XXXXXX

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF XXXXXX, THE DEFENDANT

1. Introduction

1.1. This skeleton argument is submitted in support of the Defendant's case against the Claimant's claim for an alleged parking charge notice (PCN) issued at a PureGym car park managed by Excel Parking Services Ltd.​

1.2. The Defendant contends that the PCN is unenforceable due to procedural deficiencies, lack of clear signage, and disproportionate penalties, drawing parallels to the recent case involving Hannah Robinson, where similar claims by Excel Parking were dismissed.

2. Background

2.1. On 20/06/2024, the Defendant parked at the PureGym facility located at St Marks Centre, a location managed by the Claimant.​

2.2. The Defendant, a registered member of PureGym, utilised the gym facilities during the visit.​

2.3. The claimant is stating the Defendant entered the vehicle registration mark (VRM) into the parking terminal after the stipulated time, resulting in the issuance of a PCN by the Claimant.

3. Issues in Dispute

3.1. Whether the Claimant's signage provided adequate notice of the parking terms and conditions.​ Looking at the Claimants Exhibit 2, it does not state anywhere on the signage how quickly one must enter the VRM once they have entered the premise Excel Parking are contracted to.

3.2. Whether the delay in entering the VRM constitutes a breach warranting the issuance of a PCN.​

3.3. Whether the penalty imposed is proportionate and enforceable under contract law principles.

4. Legal Framework

4.1. The Claimant relies on the terms purportedly displayed on signage at the car park to establish a contractual agreement.​

4.2. For a contract to be enforceable, especially in the context of parking on private land, the terms must be clearly communicated, and the penalties must be proportionate, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].

4.3 Any term to carry out an obligation on foot, once inside gym premises within however many minutes of first driving through the entrance in moving traffic is clearly unfair under the Consumers Rights Act and serves no legitimate purpose referring to Section 62 and 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] is distinguished, and this charge is an unenforceable penalty.

5. Arguments

5.1. Inadequate Signage

5.1.1. The signage at the PureGym car park failed to clearly communicate the requirement to enter the VRN within a specific timeframe.

5.2. Precedent: Hannah Robinson Case

5.3.1. In a recent case dismissed on the 26th March 2025 , Hannah Robinson was issued multiple PCNs by Excel Parking for minor delays in paying for her parking due to a ‘5-minute rule’.

5.3.2. The court dismissed the claims, citing inadequate signage and disproportionate penalties, and ordered Excel Parking to pay £10,000 in costs.​

5.3.3. This precedent underscores the necessity for clear communication of terms and proportionate penalties.​

5.3. Disproportionate Penalty

5.2.1. The penalty imposed is excessive and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss, contravening the principles laid out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.​

5.2.2. 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 as the Claimant has stated. That is sufficient to prove authorised gym patronage, regardless of an arbitrary time limit. This term is indisputably an unfair & unjustified burden on the consumer so it cannot stand.

6. Conclusion

6.1. The Defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the Claimant's claim on the grounds of:​

• Inadequate signage failing to communicate essential terms.​
• Disproportionate and punitive penalty not reflective of any actual loss.​
• Established precedent demonstrating similar claims being dismissed.​

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this skeleton argument are true.

Signed:

Date: 24/04/2025

babtunde345

@Coupon-mad please can you have a look at my skeleton argument before I file with Claimant and court. I also have an email from a puregym member stating this happens to a lot of members and staff, is this worth filing too? It has the persons name, the time they sent the email and the email address' too.

Many thanks!