Excel Parking/DCB Legal Court Claims

Coupon-mad

Consumer Rights Act not 'Consumers'

I didn't say cite only s62 and s71. I said cite CRA s62-s71 so the judge has to read all those clauses in between as well.

I'd change:

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.

to

2.3. The claimant is stating the Defendant entered the vehicle registration mark (VRM) into the parking terminal "too late" applying an arbitrary and unknown time limit, resulting in the issuance of a PCN by the Claimant.

And Hannah Robinson's case isn't a precedent. Remove that word! I didn't say to use that word. You could call it a 'landmark case decided with barristers representing both parties'

And you do need to link to a report about it. Here's a good one, better than a press article:

https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/news-insights/trinity-s-seth-kitson-part-of-pro-bono-team-to-defeat-high-profile-parking-claim/

And I'd link to the URL for the CRA legislation in a footnote.  Make it easy (do read it yourself first).

And you don't put a Statement of Truth in a skelly. Do sign & date it but it's not a witness submission as such. Not evidence.

babtunde345

Revised section 3: I had a look at the exhibit 2 and it does say this:



It does state that you have 10 minutes, should i not mention the signage at all in the skeleton argument? Or should I say it still does not mention how quickly where a VRM should be inputted. I have written a revised version below

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 states a maximum period of 10 minutes is allowed to purchase the required Parking Tariff. However, 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.

Coupon-mad

It does state that you have 10 minutes.

Errm it certainly doesn't!

You can add more then. You can say that Excel's sign is completely silent about ANY term relating to use of the terminal in the gym. Look at it! There is NOTHING about the keypad.

Therefore, the offer of free parking is entirely made by the gym on a banner inside the premises next to the keypad. The banner has the gym's name at the top not Excel's and has no caveat, no obligation or contractual meaning. There's no time limit for gym members to use the terminal and even if there was, it would fall foul of the CRA 2015.

babtunde345

 

Updated Skeleton argument- @Coupon-mad thank you so much for the advice. I have made the relevant changes

Also wanted to ask, shall I file that email I talked about before, or any signs within the gym? They do have a banner which does say 2hr free parking with excel parking on there, but that banner was put in literally last week. Should i still then include it with regarding to signage?  It seems i'm not the only person who is having this issue. Should I file anything else within the gym? Many thanks

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 "too late" applying an arbitrary and unknown time limit, 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.​

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 Consumer Rights Act and serves no legitimate purpose referring to Section 62-71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] is distinguished, and this charge is an unenforceable penalty.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

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. Looking at the Claimants Exhibit 2; Excel's sign is completely silent about ANY term relating to use of the terminal in the gym. 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. Therefore, the offer of free parking is entirely made by the gym on a banner inside the premises next to the keypad. The banner has the gym's name at the top not Excel's and has no caveat, no obligation or contractual meaning. There's no time limit for gym members to use the terminal and even if there was, it would fall foul of the Consumer Right Act 2015 

5.2. Hannah Robinson case. 

5.2.1 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’. This was a landmark case decided with barristers representing both parties

https://www.trinitychambers.co.uk/news-insights/trinity-s-seth-kitson-part-of-pro-bono-team-to-defeat-high-profile-parking-claim/

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

5.2.3. This landmark case underscores the necessity for clear communication of terms and proportionate penalties.​

5.3. Disproportionate Penalty

5.3.1. 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.​

5.3.2. 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.​

Signed:

Date: 24/04/2025

babtunde345

Sorry revision of section 6 due to the word precedent:

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 cases demonstrating similar claims being dismissed

Coupon-mad

Remove mention of the banner then in case they produce the one they put in last week. Don't mention the banner.

Apart from that, file & serve it.

babtunde345

thank you!! will let you know how it does @Coupon-mad

babtunde345

goes sorry ***

Coupon-mad

You can edit posts!

babtunde345

also another thing, im not sure if you know but JB is cussing you out on his linked in  .

@Coupon-mad

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jake-burgess-34a714a6_i-recently-came-across-a-forum-thread-regarding-activity-7255498474249490432-Bvdj?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAD1tT6kBHLICBuLzzKGDPaS5o4pcpYN3njk