Excel parking claim

Elham

Hello everyone, 

I have a parking ticket from excel parking and this has now reached the county court level. 

I followed the advice on the forum. I appealed using the newbie sticky on the initial stage. I also replied to the letter before claim from their solicitor also using the guidance here. 

The only thing I haven’t done is get in touch with land owners which I couldn’t find any where (the car park in question is providence street car park in Wakefield). I also didn’t email my mp as honestly I didn’t think it would reach this stage but this is on my to do list for tomorrow. 

The “offence” is that the driver paid for parking after the ten minute that they allow for paying by 5-6 minutes. The driver paid for the full day so they were was there for approx 9 hours and paid for 12hours which is what they charge for long stay. 

I will attach the letter from the court here for your information. The date on the letter is 4/7/25. 

The letter was sent to the registered keeper but they were not the driver and I wondered if we should at this point say who it is? 

I will acknowledge the receipt of the letter, I just made the gateway account for the keeper and will start drafting the defence. 

Thank you all in advance for any help that you provide. 

Le_Kirk

What is the date of issue of the N1SDT claim form?  Complete the AoS (follow guide in the NEWBIE) five days after issue date, which will give you the maximum time to compile your defence.  Use the new template but do not send it until we have sorted out if the MCOL box will accept it without restricting your input and messing up the formatting.

Elham

Hello, Le_Kirk sorry for the reply just managed to sit down and have a look at this. 

the date on the court letter is the 4/7/25. I have acknowledged the AOS. I am going start putting the defence together and will send it here once done 

Elham

This is the first draft of the defence. I should also mention that the claimant's solicitors are ELMS Legal. 

1.  The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3.  Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver on the day of the incident.

4. The POC shows the reason for this claim as being “Parked without purchasing a valid Pay and Display ticket for VRM”. The defendant denies these allegations as the driver did purchase a valid ticket and has proof in the form of an online receipt from Connect Cashless. The defendant would also like to point out the discrepancy in the claimant’s allegation. In the initial appeal the receipt was sent to the claimant however, as predicted, the appeal was rejected. The claimant acknowledged that a ticket was purchased on the day and that the claim is due taking longer than ten minutes to purchase a ticket. It is not clear to the defendant what the exact offence is. 

5. On the day in question a ticket was purchased via the Connect Cashless website. The driver paid for the entire stay and exited the car park before the end of the period. The driver used this car park on many occasions and always used this method to purchase the tickets. There is no mention of the 10 minute rule on the website to prompt drivers to pay within the allocated time. In addition, although there is signage at the entrance of this car park It is impossible to read the entire sign unless the driver completely stops the vehicle to read the information. This is not a reasonable expectation to place on drivers.

6. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

7.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

9. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper [...] for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’

10.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

11.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

12. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))." 

I would be grateful if i can get any tips on this. Thank you

Elham

I just went back to the initial appeal response from excel parking. The driver took 17 minutes to purchase the ticket. The initial 10 minute is their consideration period and they are claiming for the seven minutes. It says that there is no ticket purchased for this 7 minutes and they are treating the 7 minute seperate from the rest of the day so the poc makes sense to me now. 

Should I take a screenshot of the email and send it here if will help 

Gr1pr

Seems to be a similar case to this recent change 

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24494514.womans-11-000-fine-parking-feethams-darlington-dl1-car-park/

I bet they withdraw once they realise the problem,  but do check that the whole of the time on site was paid for,  so you can add something to the defence plus any future Witness Statement etc

Change the double quotes to single quotes,  because we now know that you cannot use  " or < or > , so use  ' not "

Elham

Should I change the wording on the defence now that I understand that they are treating this 7 minutes as a seperate thing or do you think this is okay? 

I will add that I paid for 12 hours but was in the car park for 9 hours to paragraph 4 

Gr1pr

I would reword 4 if possible,  but the final draft has to fit within the 122 line limit on MCOL,  so cannot be war and peace,  bearing in mind that some punctuation marks need changing too, as I mentioned earlier 

I don't treat it as separate,  so neither should you, you paid for 12 hours in total and were on site for 9 or less than 10 hours in total,  that is your standpoint 

You are defending the claim and the POC, doesn't matter what they are claiming or how they treat it,  as you can see from the Feethams case,  the MP got the system changed on the same basis as your arguments 

Elham

Thank you for the reply Gr1pr

I changed paragraph 4,5 and added 6. I also change the punctuations marks. How does this look now? 
I was wondering if I can add that this car park had bad google reviews and all from people who received fines from excel? would that be helpful at all?

1.  The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty the allegation or the heads of cost. The Defendant denies liability for the inflated sum claimed, or at all.

2.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

3.  Save as set out below, the Defendant has little or no knowledge or recollection of events on the date stated. The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver on the day of the incident.

4. The Claimant alleges the vehicle was 'Parked without purchasing a valid Pay and Display ticket for VRM'. The defendant denies these allegations as the driver purchased a valid ticket and has an online receipt which can be presented as evidence. A parking ticket was purchased at 8.52 AM for 12 hours and the vehicle exited the site well before the end of the period.

5. The first appeal was rejected by the Claimant on the basis that the ticket was purchased after the consideration period set by the company. The driver used this car park on many occasions and always paid using the website. There is no indication of the 10 minute rule on the website to prompt drivers to pay within the allocated time. In addition, although there is signage at the entrance of this car park it is impossible to read the entire sign unless the driver completely stops the vehicle to read the information. This is not a reasonable expectation to place on drivers.

6. The Defendant would also like to point to the recent case by Excel Parking at Feethams Leisure Centre Car Park which was dismissed by the Judge who found Excel's 'conduct in relation to this litigation was both unreasonable and out of the norm'.

7. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

8.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

9. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

10. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper [...] for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’'

11.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

12.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

13. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)). '

Coupon-mad

Remove the links and change " to ' (as I have done in the Template Defence yesterday). You should use the newest version.

You need the phrase '5 minute rule' in this defence. Search the forum for this & copy a paragraph:

Hannah Robinson wonders mine