Excel parking claim

Le_Kirk

Will that all fit in the MCOL defence box?

Elham

I haven’t tried it yet I just wanted to check first, I think I can take out the first paragraph if it doesn’t fit as the points are explained in detail in the rest of the points 

Coupon-mad

Elham said:

I haven’t tried it yet I just wanted to check first, I think I can take out the first paragraph if it doesn’t fit as the points are explained in detail in the rest of the points 

But none of that has the wording my search finds. Please look more closely at the results and find the specific defence words including:

Hannah Robinson wonders mine.

Elham

Hello again, I found the paragraphs and added them to the defence now (I was trying to change in to my own words before). I kept one of the paragraphs that I wrote which is number 4 and the rest are from previous posts here. I will aim to submit this by the end of the weekend.  Thank you

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 and 3 are denied. The alleged contravention is unlawful as further described in this defence. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. With regards to the claim that the vehicle was 'Parked without purchasing a valid Pay and Display ticket for VRM' the Defendant strongly denies the allegation. A valid ticket was purchased on the day of the alleged offence. A parking ticket was purchased at 8.52 AM for 12 hours and the vehicle exited the site hours before the end of the period.

6. It appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5 minute rule' which has been in the national news. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 minute time limit' hidden term, is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant.

3.3. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year".  That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. Excel Parking has confirmed to irate MPs that all cases have been dropped in recent weeks due to the adverse publicity.  One wonders why they think they can pursue this one.

Gr1pr

In paragraph 3, I am not sure that it is unlawful,  but it is, without merit,  or something similar 

Elham

I will change it in my my final draft, thank you 

do you think I can submit this now? 

Coupon-mad

Numbering is odd. Para 6 then 3.3?

The rest is good. Do you see the killer point that this ban and finding that the 5 min rule is unfair, is?

Renumber it all with normal consecutive numbers and if it doesn't fit into MCOL, remove the entire final paragraph about discontinuance. That should then fit.

Then ... it's our turn to ask for a favour. We need you! Your important 'job' in August is this:

It's very important that people like you tell the Government that you have no faith in the parking industry and the DRA demands are a pathetic attempt to extort money.

It's cheaper and far better to defend a court claim and third parties adding any extra money is one of the major two factors that stop people engaging at pre-action stage (the other factor is using old addresses and refusing to reissue PCNs or hear disputes).

The message for the MHCLG, in answer to questions 13 or 14 about why cases go to court:

You never wanted this claim, you wanted your dispute properly heard, but the DRA fee is extortion and that plus the IAS being a joke kangaroo court owned by Will Hurley (clearly not impartial) gives no pre-action independent safeguard at all.

Good people with a dispute, have no choice but to defend in court.

THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED.

DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Elham

I made the adjustments and just submitted the defence. Thank you so much for your help guys. I absolutely will help I will get this done soon