DEFENCE HELP: Excel Parking, Brand Street (Hitchin)

Tomahawk25

Hello everyone, 

Firstly, thank you for all the guidance you've provided so far - very insightful and helpful (this has been a source of a lot of worry for my wife and I, so having forums like this is incredible).

I am trying to support my wife (L) in fighting the CROOKS at Excel Parking, but they do a really great job of making you feel like s**t! My wife's first appeal was rejected by Excel, and then a second by IAS. We then found this forum and realised the error of our ways. I’ve given the context below and briefly summarise what happened and alleged our contraventions: - 

27/7/24

• Children taking first bus ride to town on their own (youngest has hypermobility issues/ was using crutches, so L met them in town); L was nervous so drove to town to meet them off the bus

• L parked at Brand Street Cark Park (never used it before) at 11:57:50

• L took approximately 3 minutes to drive up the ramp (where the ANPR camera is), park and walk to the stairwell (nearest visible signage) to ‘make payment’

• Signage said 'pay with app (Connect App) or phone'; no cash machine or 'pay and display' available at the car park 

• L tried to download app (approx. 5mins) - unsuccessful at first/ slow connection so abandoned and called the helpline (not a payment helpline but didn't know this at the time)

• L called the helpline at 12:09 (first attempt as no options to pay available) and again at 12:11 (second attempt to check she hadn’t misheard) - saved call log as evidence; evidence of app being downloaded on 27/7/24

• L realised the helpline is not for help with payment, so called the 0345 number instead as 12:11 (screenshots of call logs saved) - evidence of call log screenshot

• L tried to enter bank detail twice but not accepted

• L returned to the app (which had now been downloaded!) and made a payment - evidence of INVOICE saved

• L, in a panic, entered the numbers and letters incorrectly (i instead of one; zero instead of O);

• L paid for a 3hr stay from 12:19 to 15:19; she immediately ran to meet her daughters who were now standing on the side of the road!!

• L took 23 minutes to pay for a ticket (the car park has a 10 minute pay-or-leave sign); this is an inordinate amount of time but she never left the cark park! Signage to foot of car park stairwell says CCTV in operation - there is none.

• L was very panicked about getting a contravention (she had one a few months before, ironically from Excel Parking in another part of town  - broken machine - which is well-documented in this forum!); L returned back to her car at 14:50 to ensure she had ‘made up’ the approximate time she had used on arrival (as there was no means of paying for the time she had used prior to purchasing the ticket!)

A few things to add but might not be relevant: 

IAS adjudicator's response after appeal

- the customer could have paid using RinGo to Connect (there is no signage suggesting RinGo can be used anywhere in the car park); 
- they are not focusing on the number plate error, only the time spent before paying
- the images Excel have provided as evidence of signage are dated from 2020 - 2023. I went back and took images of the signs on 11/1/25 and 
a) the giant sign at the entrance is no longer there 
b) the signage to the entrance of the stairwell has been defaced/ smeared (is illegible) - no evidence to suggest it was like this when L used it; none to say it wasn't either
c) the 'temporary' poster is stuck the the electrical box underneath the signage and is a piece of paper in a plastic wallet - illegible due to water damage! It was actually impossible to read so goodness knows how anyone will be escaping without a fine!

I'm not sure if this is relevant information but thought I would post in case!

Date and Info

- Contravention date: 27/7/2024

- Issue date: 5/8/2024

- IAS appellant response date: 1/10/2024

- Claim form issued date: 7/5/2025

- Submitted an AOS 11/1/2025

- A SAR has not been submitted (should we? I've read a conflicting point somewhere in another thread and wanted to check this was ‘still a thing’ worth doing). 

Particulars of Claim: 

1. The defendant (D) is indebted to the claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxxxx at Brand Street Car Park, Hitchin SG5 1JE

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 27/7/2024

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: 101) Failure TO Purchase The Parking Tariff For The Registration Mark of the Vehicle on Site and / or within the time allowed

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANTS CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgement or sooner payment. 

3. Costs of and court fees

Amount Claimed: 175.40

Court Fee: 35.00

Legal rep. Costs: 50.00

Total: 260.40

• Appealed to Excel online (rejected) - letter addressed to me (Tom)

• Appealed to IAS (rejected) - amusing reasons given, but more later (unsure of date/ will check with my wife later) 

• Notice of debt recovery letter from DCBL received 5/11/24 (to L - assuming they know now she was driving after the appeal process etc.)

• Notice of intended legal action / unpaid parking charge received 20/11/24

• Received a claim form from CNBC (claimant: Excel; payment to DCBLegal

DEFENCE 

We are now trying to build a defence. I have read the guidance and the template but find the legal language overwhelming so not sure if what I’ve included is contradictory. My paragraph 1, 2 and 3 are below, 4 onwards are copied from the template word for word:

Email Title: #[INSERT CLAIM NUMBER] DEFENCE

URGENT - CLAIM #[INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]  - Defence attached.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER] 

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and - 

L               

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

The facts known to the Defendant:

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.

3. The defendant drove into Hitchin to greet her children at the bus stop (daughter with medical issues/ friend time using the bus., and decided to park at Brand Street car park (her first time using this facility). She entered the car park and made her way to the signage adjacent to the shopping stairwell to make a payment. The defendant made multiple attempts to pay without success, using the Connect app and telephone line (no ‘pay and display’ or pay machine on the premises). The defendant remained on the premises until the payment was processed. The defendant received an electronic receipt/ invoice and made her way into town to meet her children. The Defendant found the whole process extremely stressful, especially due to her daughter's hypermobility issues and being in town without her. The defendant returned back to the car park thirty minutes before the end of her parking period, to ensure she was well within the allocated time in fear of contraventions. 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Thank you in advance for your help!!

Tom

LDast

Doesn't matter. As long as you have submitted a defence, any defence, they will discontinue in due course.

Even if it were to ever get in front of a judge, that clause in the contract serves to penalise the driver. Therefore, a penalty in a contract that serves no legitimate interest, is a penalty clause. As that clause is central to the performance of the contract, then the whole contract is void.

As I said, it will never get in front of a judge for a hearing as they will throw the towel in before thy have to pay the trial fee.

Coupon-mad

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

No need for more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence right after the denial paragraph 3:

3.1.  The Defendant was a genuine paying motorist who should never have been penalised. The system for payment was not fit for purpose and failed more than once. The Defendant has evidence of attempts and finally managed to do so. The Defendant took into account the delay caused by the Claimant's faulty and unfit system and left early. The Defendant later wasted their time on what they now know is a futile and non-impartial pseudo 'appeals' set up, including the self-serving and anonymous IAS which is owned by the same entity which runs the IPC. The latter has recently publicly stated that no motorist should be penalised for a delay in paying, where they are a genuine motorist who managed to pay in full.  The payment made fully covered the period of parking and this claim is frivolous and unreasonable with no prospects of success. 

KeithP

Tomahawk25 said:

- Claim form issued date: 7/5/2025      <<<<==== I assume that is meant to be January  

- Submitted an AOS 11/1/2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's four three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Tomahawk25

Thanks everyone. Email sent today 🙏 

Gr1pr

Ps, your dates have errors,  please correct them

Tomahawk25

Gr1pr said:

Ps, your dates have errors,  please correct them

Thank you 🙏 

Tomahawk25

Thanks for your help so far....
This received yesterday. Could you advise on the next steps? 

T

KeithP

You were expecting that weren't you?

Item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence says...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

Tomahawk25

Thanks @KeithP; appreciate it. I remembered I was 'expecting it' and 'not to panic', but flapping trying to remember where it was written! 

I shall go back for another read look. 

Many thanks

T

Tomahawk25

Morning, 

MCOL website says the following: 'Your claim was transferred to ST. HELENS on 18/03/2025'.

Is this normal? I named Bedford as our local court house. 

Mediation completed. The process lasted around 10-15mins and the lady was lovely (for anyone in the same situation). 

Haven't heard anything other than ready this. 

Thanks