10k pro bono costs order against excel

ChirpyChicken

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anya-prasad_i-got-fined-11k-over-a-darlington-five-minute-activity-7311332961340043266-hr4E?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&rcm=ACoAADlGaOcBG_wnNMofi6c4aEimuZM_otv0Ffo

Whats Jake saying...

ChirpyChicken

Copy and pasting not working well tonight. .

We’ve just obtained a pro bono costs order of over £10,000 in favour of the Access to Justice Foundation   I acted probono for our client Hannah Robinson who had been aggressively and unreasonably pursued by Excel Parking Services Limited (“Excel”) in respect of parking tickets where she had paid for the parking but not within their “5 minute rule.” Excel had threatened to bring a claim against Hannah for over £11,000 of parking tickets.   On 26th March we were successful in obtaining the dismissal of the claim against Hannah at trial in Middlesbrough County Court before DJ Richards. The case has received media interest from the BBC and has had involvement of the local Darlington MP Lola McEvoy.   https://lnkd.in/enUGKC5y   I acted on a probono basis, supervised by Keidan Harrison co-founding Partner Luke Tucker Harrison and instructed pro bono Counsel Seth Kitson of Trinity Chambers, Barristers.   The Claimant, Excel, brought claims for breach of contract arising from a contract to park a vehicle on private land, relating to parking on 21st and 22nd July 2023. These claims were later consolidated by order of DDJ Gibson on 3 January 2025. Excel then sought to amend its claim entirely, abandoning the original claims and pleading 11 new contractual claims. However, it was undisputed that Hannah had paid for parking before leaving on both days—and had even overpaid. The claim was defended on the basis that a £100 charge for not paying within five minutes of arrival was an unenforceable penalty as it served no legitimate purpose, and that, in any event, such a term was ‘unfair’ under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   At the hearing DJ Richards dismissed Excel’s application to amend and dismissed the claim. The court made an indemnity costs order against Excel on the basis that their litigation conduct had been ‘unreasonable’ under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and was sufficiently ‘out of the norm’ to justify the imposition of indemnity costs.   As a result, Excel Parking have been ordered to pay pro bono costs of £10,240.10 to the Access to Justice Foundation within 14 days.

Gr1pr

He's on his bike,  again,  lol  it's how he avoids parking company charges, but it could rain on his parade

Perhaps Excel Parking and VCS should stick to morally correct reasonable parking enforcement,  if it exists 

Coupon-mad

A few of us had heard about this last week and laughed our heads off!  This outcome is about this case:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw2d00xpmxo.amp



Turned the tables on SRS and JB and the whole motley crew at appalling ex-clampers Excel. The message:

...if you can't take it, don't dish it out...

I cannot WAIT for the BBC to pick up this result and publicise it!

Your 'sharp practice' MO is ending, Excel. Perhaps time for SRS to hang up his Captain Clampit cape?

The IPC must be smarting. This one will get publicity.

Coupon-mad

Did Excel's Jake Burgess actually post this on X or LinkedIn?

Talk about tone deaf and consumer blaming:



Ever heard of the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

Ever heard of unfair terms?

Guess what Excel, you cannot just invent (and/or persuade a landowner to let you use) whatever terms you like - that you know from years of experience as wheelclampers and bulk ticketers will help to generate PCNs - then hide that 'term' on a ludicrously wordy sign, provide a payment app that takes more than 10 mins (not even just 'more than 5') to download & use, and ... call it a contract!

Not been a great start to the year for Excel and VCS, what with the latter also losing at the Court of Appeal too.

ChirpyChicken

@Coupon-mad indeed he did

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

@Coupon-mad indeed he did

He put that on Linked In?

Blindside6

ChirpyChicken said:

Copy and pasting not working well tonight. .

We’ve just obtained a pro bono costs order of over £10,000 in favour of the Access to Justice Foundation   I acted probono for our client Hannah Robinson who had been aggressively and unreasonably pursued by Excel Parking Services Limited (“Excel”) in respect of parking tickets where she had paid for the parking but not within their “5 minute rule.” Excel had threatened to bring a claim against Hannah for over £11,000 of parking tickets.   On 26th March we were successful in obtaining the dismissal of the claim against Hannah at trial in Middlesbrough County Court before DJ Richards. The case has received media interest from the BBC and has had involvement of the local Darlington MP Lola McEvoy.   https://lnkd.in/enUGKC5y   I acted on a probono basis, supervised by Keidan Harrison co-founding Partner Luke Tucker Harrison and instructed pro bono Counsel Seth Kitson of Trinity Chambers, Barristers.   The Claimant, Excel, brought claims for breach of contract arising from a contract to park a vehicle on private land, relating to parking on 21st and 22nd July 2023. These claims were later consolidated by order of DDJ Gibson on 3 January 2025. Excel then sought to amend its claim entirely, abandoning the original claims and pleading 11 new contractual claims. However, it was undisputed that Hannah had paid for parking before leaving on both days—and had even overpaid. The claim was defended on the basis that a £100 charge for not paying within five minutes of arrival was an unenforceable penalty as it served no legitimate purpose, and that, in any event, such a term was ‘unfair’ under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   At the hearing DJ Richards dismissed Excel’s application to amend and dismissed the claim. The court made an indemnity costs order against Excel on the basis that their litigation conduct had been ‘unreasonable’ under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and was sufficiently ‘out of the norm’ to justify the imposition of indemnity costs.   As a result, Excel Parking have been ordered to pay pro bono costs of £10,240.10 to the Access to Justice Foundation within 14 days.

Tremendous result, very well done to all the team involved and Hannah for having the guts to face down the bullies.

As one adjacent to the civil justice  system, I'm probably more aware than most how significant that adverse costs Order is (CPR 27.14(2)(g), presumably). Not just in the instant claim, but for the wider message it will send to PPCs, their lawyers, and, moreover, district judges toiling in other county courts around the country wilting under the daily burden of misconceived parking claims and solicitors' agents representing them with threadbare instructions.

Car1980

Coupon-mad said:

Did Excel's Jake Burgess actually post this on X or LinkedIn?

Talk about tone deaf and consumer blaming:



Ever heard of the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

Ever heard of unfair terms?

Guess what Excel, you cannot just invent (and/or persuade a landowner to let you use) whatever terms you like - that you know from years of experience as wheelclampers and bulk ticketers will help to generate PCNs - then hide that 'term' on a ludicrously wordy sign, provide a payment app that takes more than 10 mins (not even just 'more than 5') to download & use, and ... call it a contract!

Not been a great start to the year for Excel and VCS, what with the latter also losing at the Court of Appeal too.

Rather foolish. That sneer at the judiciary is going to appear in some witness statements.

Car1980

A couple of useful conclusions: 

• An unenforceable penalty as it served no legitimate purpose, and that, in any event, such a term was ‘unfair’ under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

• The court made an indemnity costs order against Excel on the basis that their litigation conduct had been ‘unreasonable’ under CPR 27.14(2)(g)

• With Orton v Barclays Bank UK PLC and now Excel Parking Services Limited v Robinson it's been an interesting week and DCB Legal should be getting worried once their discontinuances start getting challenged with these new cases.

kryten3000

Coupon-mad said:

ChirpyChicken said:

@Coupon-mad indeed he did

He put that on Linked In?

Absolutely he did and it's still there as of 23:10 on the 5th April 2025.

Thursday he posted a photo of the inside of an empty court room*, something to do with a Road Traffic Regulation Act hearing.  

* I believe this is technically not an offence as there were no people in the picture but it's still not recommended.