Excel Parking VIA Elms Legal Claim Form Help

TroubleShootMyParking

I have recently received a claims form from Elms Legal through Excel Parking Services Limited. I've followed all the newbie advice on here and through MCOL done my AOS. I am about to submit my defence (I have until the 24th to do so) but was wondering if there was any more advice I could get in regards to my defence?

I have used the template but I can't tell if the language I am using is too 'emotional' and should be more rational. 

Any help would be appreciated!

Gr1pr

Post the issue date from the claim form plus the aos date,  plus add a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

Your defence should address the POC details,  legal points , rebuttals and facts

Emotional stories etc are for the Witness statement bundle in several months time 

TroubleShootMyParking

The issue date of the claim form is 05/03/2025, the AOS date is 11/03/2025

KeithP

TroubleShootMyParking said:

The issue date of the claim form is 05/03/2025, the AOS date is 11/03/2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th April 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

TroubleShootMyParking

I've used the template exactly and made the tweaks where necessary, is there any chance someone could cast an eye over it and make sure I'm heading in the right direction? Thank you!

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 registered keeper and driver.

3. In the period mentioned the Defendant did visit the car to The Pitch and paid the maximum possible amount the app Connect Cashless Parking would allow.

4. The Defendant had no reason to believe that the amount paid would not suffice as the wording and implicit trust in the applications ability to sort out the logistics of parking obstructed any semblance of clarity on what needed to be paid.

5. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

6. 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.

7. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

Remove para 5 which makes no sense for your case and doesn't even say which case it's talking about. But Chan doesn't apply here.

And if it was me I wouldn't let Chat GPT write para 4 which screams 'AI' to my eyes.

TroubleShootMyParking

I think I can take that as a compliment I guess, because I did write that bit myself! I tried just scanning over what a few other people had written and tweaking it to fit mine but I guess re-reading it it does read a bit 'AI' like. Is there any way that I can say it better? The point I'm trying to draw towards is that if I were to use another parking app like PayByPhone then if your parking takes you into an overnight threshold then it just calculates it till the next morning which is what I believe this app should have realistically done. The car park offered parking from 8am to 8pm with 3 hour increments purchasable and 8pm to 8am as one flat overnight rate. I paid for 3 hours of parking at 7:47pm and was asleep in my hotel by 10 and got ticketed at 7am so it feels like an extortionate charge that would never have existed had I been 13 minutes later!

Is it mainly just the section 2 that requires tweaking from the Newbie post? I've read over it now countless times and can see that the rest of the sections are to do with CRA and the exaggeration of the claim but just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. I also don't want to paste the entire wall of text as I imagine its been read thousands of times already!

Coupon-mad

Yes that's right and all you need to add to 2 is whether you were the driver or not.

Maybe 3 and 4 could be

3. In the period mentioned the Defendant did visit the car park adjacent to The Pitch and paid the maximum possible amount the app 'Connect Cashless' would allow. The Defendant always pays for parking and is fairly familiar with various apps, but has since discovered that this one works against the interests of consumers and has a one star Trustpilot score (as do Excel Parking). If the Defendant had been able to use another parking app, like PayByPhone, then if your parking takes you into an overnight threshold then it just automatically calculates it until the next morning. This is what the Defendant believes this app should have reasonably done. Connect Cashless is a notoriously poor payment app which is not fit for purpose. This faulty, non-intuitive app has caused such public outcry that this Claimant has been forced - due to the weight of complaints going to them (with affected motorists, landowners, managing agents and MPs all up in arms) - to abandon it at some car parks, e.g.: https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/consumer/excel-parking-pay-meters-reinstalled-after-outcry-at-broomhill-sheffield-car-park-but-price-trebles-4908272

4. The Defendant paid the right rate for overnight parking from 8pm. They had no reason to believe that the amount paid was insufficient for the advertised overnight rate. The car park offered parking from 8am to 8pm with 3 hour increments purchasable and also, an option for 8pm to 8am was offered as one flat overnight rate. The Defendant paid for parking just before 8pm and got ticketed at 7am. Instead of allocating the payment for the overnight rate at the hotel, the Claimant's app (for which they are fully liable) had merely allocated it as if it was for 3 hours. With hindsight, seems one would have had to have waited in the cold for 10 minutes or so, until the app switched to 'night rate' but even if the Defendant had done that, they'd have still received a PCN for 'paying too late' (further rogue practice which this Claimant was banned from doing just weeks ago after MPs named and shamed them in Parliament). The Defendant was indisputably caught by a 'concealed pitfall or trap' of the exact type identified by their Lordships at the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]. 

TroubleShootMyParking

I sent off my direct questionnaire on Thursday (it said on the letter it needed doing by the Monday the 14th and I got side-tracked with work and personal stuff). I got the auto-acceptance from the DQ CNBC email but Elms Legal have responded yesterday saying they don't accept service via email. Should I send off a physical copy to them as well or is it for the most part irrelevant?

Coupon-mad

Irrelevant. Ignore that. Elms Legal will drop out soon anyway and Excel will handle the WS evidence and hearing stages for themself.