Excel/DCB Legal lose in Wakefield County Court

Castle

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

Castle said:

Blindside6 said:

Interesting afternoon in Wakefield County Court:

Case turned on whether Excel/DCB Legal (via a witness statement from Jake Burgess) had proved, on balance of probabilities, whether the output from the ticket machine, showing a partial VRM, and correctly displayed in his vehicle by the defendant, matched the input into the machine which should have been verified by print-out from Excel/DCB Legal says the judge. Who went further and told the court that the Burgess statement was completely silent on this point, and, being so, fatal to the claim.

Fact that, yet again, DCB Legal had filed a witness statement from one of their junior members of staff, and then not presented their witness at court to allow the Defendant to test what was questionable evidence, is irksome to me. But with a no-nonsense judge like DJ Robinson, who was well acquainted with Beavis, and car park management issues, more generally, it mattered little on this particular day.

Was there two Witness Statements?

Just the one statement. Jake Burgess is a junior member of DCB Legal staff. 

No he is employed by Excel Parking Ltd
And with regards to the unregistered Barrister/ solicitors agent i believe he may actually be called "Mr Secretary"
He is well known on that circuit doing cases for Excel/Vcs

Thank you for the Jake Burgess correction: I've located him on LinkedIn, worked for Excel since 2015. With regard to 'Mr Secretary' (albeit the court usher gave me 'Mr Secretaly'), I've located a Hanif Secretary, who is SRA regulated but with no current practicing certificate.

He wont need a practicing certificate for this.

Would beg to differ on that point. Moreover, passing himself off as a solicitors' agent, which he plainly did yesterday, absent of practicing certificate, may constitute a criminal offence under Solicitors Act 1974. Enquiries are continuing, as they say. 

It's either self employed, (an Agent), with a practicing certificate or an employee, subject to supervision by the solicitors. (HMRC may also be interested).

ChirpyChicken

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

Castle said:

Blindside6 said:

Interesting afternoon in Wakefield County Court:

Case turned on whether Excel/DCB Legal (via a witness statement from Jake Burgess) had proved, on balance of probabilities, whether the output from the ticket machine, showing a partial VRM, and correctly displayed in his vehicle by the defendant, matched the input into the machine which should have been verified by print-out from Excel/DCB Legal says the judge. Who went further and told the court that the Burgess statement was completely silent on this point, and, being so, fatal to the claim.

Fact that, yet again, DCB Legal had filed a witness statement from one of their junior members of staff, and then not presented their witness at court to allow the Defendant to test what was questionable evidence, is irksome to me. But with a no-nonsense judge like DJ Robinson, who was well acquainted with Beavis, and car park management issues, more generally, it mattered little on this particular day.

Was there two Witness Statements?

Just the one statement. Jake Burgess is a junior member of DCB Legal staff. 

No he is employed by Excel Parking Ltd
And with regards to the unregistered Barrister/ solicitors agent i believe he may actually be called "Mr Secretary"
He is well known on that circuit doing cases for Excel/Vcs

Thank you for the Jake Burgess correction: I've located him on LinkedIn, worked for Excel since 2015. With regard to 'Mr Secretary' (albeit the court usher gave me 'Mr Secretaly'), I've located a Hanif Secretary, who is SRA regulated but with no current practicing certificate.

He wont need a practicing certificate for this.

Would beg to differ on that point. Moreover, passing himself off as a solicitors' agent, which he plainly did yesterday, absent of practicing certificate, may constitute a criminal offence under Solicitors Act 1974. Enquiries are continuing, as they say. 

Sorry but thats a rabbit hole that is not worth going down and yes he has been a solicitors agent for some time and is quite well known on this circuit
Whilst i dont stick up for the the likes of Excel Parking they often use solicitors agents via the likes of Ashley Taylors / Elms / LPC/.  Its common and an accepted practice

Lemonhead39

Blindside6 said:

Interesting afternoon in Wakefield County Court:

A ticket costing £1.20 turns into a claim for £258.64 with usual add-ons.

DCB Legal, notionally representatives for Excel Parking Services, instruct a scruffy solicitors' agent who fell short of professional and ethical standards almost throughout the hearing.

He gave a name to the usher which looks like a pseudonym (not traced on Law Society/SRA registers), refused to give me his name after the hearing. Try this: 'Secretaly' (he was of Asian descent).

Case turned on whether Excel/DCB Legal (via a witness statement from Jake Burgess) had proved, on balance of probabilities, whether the output from the ticket machine, showing a partial VRM, and correctly displayed in his vehicle by the defendant, matched the input into the machine which should have been verified by print-out from Excel/DCB Legal says the judge. Who went further and told the court that the Burgess statement was completely silent on this point, and, being so, fatal to the claim.

The Defendant had made no admission as to what was input into the ticketing machine and the burden to prove that data fell to the Claimant. As many on this forum know, the Defendant has to prove nothing.

Excel/DCB's lawyer then appealed for permission to appeal, not on an error in law but over the judge's finding on balance of probabilities, a ground upon which a higher court would find impossible to overturn, absent of perversion or irrationality. Of which, there was quite the opposite.

The judge managed to restrain himself and politely refuse permission.

Our lawyer friend then decided to have another argument, absent of cogent reasoning or mathematics, over the £54 costs (yes, fifty four pounds) awarded to the Defendant strictly in accordance with the White Book and CPR 27.14. 

The Defendant, to his absolute credit, put up an exemplary lay litigant performance: Calm, spoke clearly and only when asked by the judge; resisted, politely, some unpleasant and aggressive off the cuff questioning from our lawyer friend (no permission was sought or granted for cross-examination), and kept his submissions on point.

Fact that, yet again, DCB Legal had filed a witness statement from one of their junior members of staff, and then not presented their witness at court to allow the Defendant to test what was questionable evidence, is irksome to me. But with a no-nonsense judge like DJ Robinson, who was well acquainted with Beavis, and car park management issues, more generally, it mattered little on this particular day.

Hope this gives those currently fighting a PCN (or PCN) some optimism and a warm glow to those forumites who assisted this particular Defendant (couponmad was mentioned in dispatches).

Have a good weekend, all. Please, also, do let me know your thoughts on SECRET ALY.

That defendant sounds familiar and thank you for your kind words 

JB's witness statement states that he is the Head of Legal for Excel.

I did politely tell the 'solicitor' outside the court that he needed to put his legal degree to better use and that he had no morals representing Excel. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that to others on the forum but the solicitor engaged me first so I took my opportunity.

Lemonhead39

Coupon-mad said:

Well done that Defendant!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Many congrats to the D on this hearing win.

Exact same reasons as in the hearings with @flowercuppatea and @babtunde345 last week and @Lemonhead39 reported today.

Hope he or she sticks around to respond with us (and you!) to the Public Consultation which is now open for August.

What parking operators do is is a national disgrace and a drain on Society, in terms of money and anxiety. To be part of the push to change things in future, it's very important that people like this Defendant tell the Government that:

a) motorists have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be a SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that people trust. The sector is crying out for an independent and impartial appeals service - not two involved in a race to the bottom - that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court. 

b).  THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN' THAT ONLY THE VULNERABLE PAY. DRAS LIKE DCB LEGAL MAKE NO MONEY IF THEY HANDLE DISPUTES IN THE SPIRIT OF THE APPEALS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHY THEY ALWAYS PLOUGH ON TO COURT CLAIMS AND CCJs, RATHER THAN OFFERING REAL RESOLUTION AT PRE-ACTION STAGE. THEY OFFER NOTHING, NO LEGITIMATE OPTION TO KEEP CASES OUT OF COURT.

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

I expect you know about it already but do urge the Defendant to also do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it further next week on that thread if you or they want more focus.

I'll definitely support this and encourage everybody else to do the same.

Blindside6

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

Castle said:

Blindside6 said:

Interesting afternoon in Wakefield County Court:

Case turned on whether Excel/DCB Legal (via a witness statement from Jake Burgess) had proved, on balance of probabilities, whether the output from the ticket machine, showing a partial VRM, and correctly displayed in his vehicle by the defendant, matched the input into the machine which should have been verified by print-out from Excel/DCB Legal says the judge. Who went further and told the court that the Burgess statement was completely silent on this point, and, being so, fatal to the claim.

Fact that, yet again, DCB Legal had filed a witness statement from one of their junior members of staff, and then not presented their witness at court to allow the Defendant to test what was questionable evidence, is irksome to me. But with a no-nonsense judge like DJ Robinson, who was well acquainted with Beavis, and car park management issues, more generally, it mattered little on this particular day.

Was there two Witness Statements?

Just the one statement. Jake Burgess is a junior member of DCB Legal staff. 

No he is employed by Excel Parking Ltd
And with regards to the unregistered Barrister/ solicitors agent i believe he may actually be called "Mr Secretary"
He is well known on that circuit doing cases for Excel/Vcs

Thank you for the Jake Burgess correction: I've located him on LinkedIn, worked for Excel since 2015. With regard to 'Mr Secretary' (albeit the court usher gave me 'Mr Secretaly'), I've located a Hanif Secretary, who is SRA regulated but with no current practicing certificate.

He wont need a practicing certificate for this.

Would beg to differ on that point. Moreover, passing himself off as a solicitors' agent, which he plainly did yesterday, absent of practicing certificate, may constitute a criminal offence under Solicitors Act 1974. Enquiries are continuing, as they say. 

Sorry but thats a rabbit hole that is not worth going down and yes he has been a solicitors agent for some time and is quite well known on this circuit
Whilst i dont stick up for the the likes of Excel Parking they often use solicitors agents via the likes of Ashley Taylors / Elms / LPC/.  Its common and an accepted practice

Going down 'rabbit holes' is an essential part of my vocation: The concept that I would be prepared to overlook an individual instructed by Excel Parking/DCB Legal giving a false name to a court usher to conceal his true identity, falsely presenting as a solicitors' agent to the court, when not in possession of a practicing certificate, and then seeking to remove a journalist from a hearing, is completely out of the question. The matter will be pursued, appropriately, with the statutory regulator and the police.

ChirpyChicken

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Blindside6 said:

Castle said:

Blindside6 said:

Interesting afternoon in Wakefield County Court:

Case turned on whether Excel/DCB Legal (via a witness statement from Jake Burgess) had proved, on balance of probabilities, whether the output from the ticket machine, showing a partial VRM, and correctly displayed in his vehicle by the defendant, matched the input into the machine which should have been verified by print-out from Excel/DCB Legal says the judge. Who went further and told the court that the Burgess statement was completely silent on this point, and, being so, fatal to the claim.

Fact that, yet again, DCB Legal had filed a witness statement from one of their junior members of staff, and then not presented their witness at court to allow the Defendant to test what was questionable evidence, is irksome to me. But with a no-nonsense judge like DJ Robinson, who was well acquainted with Beavis, and car park management issues, more generally, it mattered little on this particular day.

Was there two Witness Statements?

Just the one statement. Jake Burgess is a junior member of DCB Legal staff. 

No he is employed by Excel Parking Ltd
And with regards to the unregistered Barrister/ solicitors agent i believe he may actually be called "Mr Secretary"
He is well known on that circuit doing cases for Excel/Vcs

Thank you for the Jake Burgess correction: I've located him on LinkedIn, worked for Excel since 2015. With regard to 'Mr Secretary' (albeit the court usher gave me 'Mr Secretaly'), I've located a Hanif Secretary, who is SRA regulated but with no current practicing certificate.

He wont need a practicing certificate for this.

Would beg to differ on that point. Moreover, passing himself off as a solicitors' agent, which he plainly did yesterday, absent of practicing certificate, may constitute a criminal offence under Solicitors Act 1974. Enquiries are continuing, as they say. 

Sorry but thats a rabbit hole that is not worth going down and yes he has been a solicitors agent for some time and is quite well known on this circuit
Whilst i dont stick up for the the likes of Excel Parking they often use solicitors agents via the likes of Ashley Taylors / Elms / LPC/.  Its common and an accepted practice

Going down 'rabbit holes' is an essential part of my vocation: The concept that I would be prepared to overlook an individual instructed by Excel Parking/DCB Legal giving a false name to a court usher to conceal his true identity, falsely presenting as a solicitors' agent to the court, when not in possession of a practicing certificate, and then seeking to remove a journalist from a hearing, is completely out of the question. The matter will be pursued, appropriately, with the statutory regulator and the police.

Then i admire your tenacity and given your obvious industry connections i am sure you will achieve the result you are after

Lemonhead39

There's an interesting new development here.

After the case was dismissed, the solicitor or solicitor agent asked for my bank details which, when I questioned, said he needed them for payment of costs.

Today DCB have e mailed me, saying they represent the claimant, asking for my bank details so it sounds like he should not have asked me for my bank details at all. Any advice please?

The General Form of Judgement came through today and it mentions that there shall be a transcript at public expense of todays judgement. Would this be available to me if I e mail the court?

Thanks

ChirpyChicken

No dw quite common for a rep to ask for bank info. Nothing dodgy.
Just supply them to DCB
Please post up the order.

Blindside6

ChirpyChicken said:

No dw quite common for a rep to ask for bank info. Nothing dodgy.
Just supply them to DCB
Please post up the order.

We appear to be at odds again. That is not my experience either as a lay litigant or observer. Moreover, I'm curious as to how you repeatedly speak for so many people, across so many cases?

Blindside6

Lemonhead39 said:

There's an interesting new development here.

After the case was dismissed, the solicitor or solicitor agent asked for my bank details which, when I questioned, said he needed them for payment of costs.

Today DCB have e mailed me, saying they represent the claimant, asking for my bank details so it sounds like he should not have asked me for my bank details at all. Any advice please?

The General Form of Judgement came through today and it mentions that there shall be a transcript at public expense of todays judgement. Would this be available to me if I e mail the court?

Thanks

Yes, I overheard that at court - and immediately thought it odd. Personally, with him looking so scruffy and not behaving at all like a qualified, practicing solicitor, I wouldn't have trusted him with those sort of details.