Excel parking /defence

Noenoe

Good afternoon All

I received a parking tickets from Excel Parking Limited for “failure to purchase the parking tariff for the registration mark of the vehicle on site within the allowed time.”  I received three parking notices in December 2024 aroung Christmas time when all car parks ad shops are busy. The times are as follows:

• 12:00:45 – 13:01:34

• 12:30:09 – 13:32:23

• 15:30:27 – 15:54:26

I paid for two of these by bank card (so I have proof of payment on my bank statements), and one by cash (so unfortunately I don’t have proof for that one).

When I first received the parking notices, I was off work unwell and not thinking clearly. The only thing I remembered at the time was that on one of the days I had to enter my registration number multiple times, because the machine wasn’t accepting the full reg. I mentioned this in my initial appeal to Excel, thinking it might explain the issue if their machines were faulty. Looking back, I realise I should have first asked them what the exact offence was supposed to be.

I am now at the stage of drafting my defence for MCOL, and I need some help. My main concern is how to handle the fact that I acknowledged in my appeal that the machines weren’t working properly, and whether Excel might try to use this against me. I do have clear evidence of payment for two of the PCNs, and I know I paid cash for the third, but have no receipt for it. Claim issue date 7/8/25 , AoS 13/8/25

Many thanks for your help

Gr1pr

Tailor the concise defence around the fact that the defendant paid in full for each and every visit and has proof , but that the claimants machines were faulty in registering the VRM details 

Show us your paragraphs 2 & 3 based on the template defence in announcements 

Are they using Elms Legal or DCB Legal   ?

Post the Issue date and a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first 

Noenoe

DCB legal 

Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 07/08/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/08/2025 at 20:

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 13/08/2025 at 08

Noenoe

Defence paragraph 2 and 3

2. The allegations and claimed costs are vague. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed. The delay in bringing proceedings makes retrieving documents/evidence difficult and prejudicial. I seek fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). I have little recollection of events, save as set out below, and admit that I was both the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the relevant dates.

3. The Claimant, Excel Parking Ltd, alleges that my full vehicle registration was not recorded. I do not have independent proof of this, other than that on one occasion I had to enter my registration multiple times. I purchased valid tickets on all occasions, and I appealed each notice. Two payments are evidenced. The Claimant has not shown that I failed to pay, and the burden of proof is theirs. The Particulars of Claim fail to clearly state the nature of the alleged breach. Courts have held that where a breach is vague or not properly specified, claims may not be enforceable (Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan [2013] EWHC 2349 (QB)). Furthermore, a charge must be proportionate and reflect a legitimate interest; minor keying or technical errors where a valid payment is made do not automatically make a driver liable (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). The machines on site may not have functioned correctly for my transactions, even though they worked for others. If a ticket issued with an incomplete registration, that is a matter under the Claimant’s control. I acted in good faith to comply with the parking terms by purchasing tickets. Any technical issue that resulted in the VRM being recorded incorrectly is the Claimant’s responsibility. Although the signage states that the full vehicle registration must be entered, this does not help if the ticket machine does not allow the full registration to be accepted. I reasonably believed that paying and receiving a ticket complied with the terms. The Claimant’s own policy recognises that a reduced settlement is appropriate where a tariff has been paid but a keying error occurred. Pursuing the full claim is disproportionate and punitive. I therefore deny any breach of contract. The claim is without merit, and I request that the Court dismiss it.

 

Gr1pr

A defence is written in the 3rd person,  no I or MY etc ( same in paragraph 2, just add AND DRIVER to the template paragraph 2  )

Due to pressure by MPs etc, prompt payment , so not taking time to pay in full , was banned earlier this year, so if they received full payment each time,  even if it wasn't in the first 5 or 10 minutes, should see this off  ( the POC is speaking about non payment,  or non payment within the time allowed 

So paragraph 3 needs tweaking, shortening and possibly take account of the 2025 ban

Far too wordy, just state that full payment was made on every occasion ( the defence template says this ) 

BE VERY CONCISE, OR YOUR DEFENCE WON'T FIT IN THE MCOL DEFENCE BOX - SO TEST IT, CHECK AND REDUCE YOUR LINE-COUNT! IF YOU NEED TO, YOU CAN REMOVE PARA 10 COMPLETELY. NOT A PROBLEM.

Try reading a few Excel DCBLegal cases within the last 6 months 

Coupon-mad

I can see these are DCB Legal POC. You have two claims about the same car, location and signs?

Both claims dated the same day?

If yes, they should both use the Henderson v Henderson cause of action estoppel defence paragraph (search the forum).

Also, search the forum for this defence paragraph too (you'll see if you change search results to 'NEWEST' - never, ever 'best match' and only read defences since February):

Hannah Robinson 5 minute rule wonders mine

Noenoe

Thank you for your comments. Let work on it.

Coupon-mad

Noenoe said:

Thank you for your comments. Let work on it.

 can see these are DCB Legal POC. You have two claims about the same car, location and signs?

Both claims dated the same day?