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.

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?

Noenoe

Good evening


Thank you for your patience, I was away. 

Yes it two claims dated same day for the same car and location , I will include Henderson v Henderson cause of action estoppel defence paragraph to my defence.

I reached out to my MP and this is the response that Excel sent to him :

1) xxxxx issued on 19/12/2024. xxx remained on site for 1 hour, 1 minutes

seconds. Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was located for the incomplete xxx’. In the appeal, no difficulties were raised when making payment.

2) xxxxx issued on 22/12/2024. Xxxx remained on site 1 hour 2 minutes .

Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was purchased for the incomplete VRM xxxx the

appeal, no difficulties were raised when making payment.

3) xxxxx2 issued on 23/12/2024. Xxxx  remained on site for 24 minutes 

seconds. Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was purchased for the incomplete VRM xxx. In the  appeal, she stated that the machine only accepted the first 3 or 4 digits of the registration.

As stated, no difficulties were raised when making payment were mentioned by xxxx

final appeal xxxxx2. However, I have investigated this claim and can confirm that a review of

the payment data on the dates in question show that other motorists were successfully making

payments and inputting their full VRMs before, during and after xxxx stay on site. We are

therefore satisfied that the payment machine was working correctly and no evidence to suggest

otherwise has been supplied. We must also note that Connect Cashless (Pay by Phone) is offered as

an alternative method of payment should a motorist for any reason be unable to make a valid

payment at the machine.

Excel is acknowledging that I paid for parking , do I include this in my defence?

 

Coupon-mad

Noenoe said:

DCB legal 

Claim History

Yes it two claims dated same day for the same car and location.

I will include Henderson v Henderson cause of action estoppel defence paragraph to my defence.

I reached out to my MP and this is the response that Excel sent to him :

1) xxxxx issued on 19/12/2024. xxx remained on site for 1 hour, 1 minutes

seconds. Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was located for the incomplete xxx’. In the appeal, no difficulties were raised when making payment.

2) xxxxx issued on 22/12/2024. Xxxx remained on site 1 hour 2 minutes .

Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was purchased for the incomplete VRM xxxx the

appeal, no difficulties were raised when making payment.

3) xxxxx2 issued on 23/12/2024. Xxxx  remained on site for 24 minutes 

seconds. Upon our review, a 1 hour ticket was purchased for the incomplete VRM xxx. In the  appeal, she stated that the machine only accepted the first 3 or 4 digits of the registration.

As stated, no difficulties were raised when making payment were mentioned by xxxx

final appeal xxxxx2. However, I have investigated this claim and can confirm that a review of

the payment data on the dates in question show that other motorists were successfully making

payments and inputting their full VRMs before, during and after xxxx stay on site. We are

therefore satisfied that the payment machine was working correctly and no evidence to suggest

otherwise has been supplied. We must also note that Connect Cashless (Pay by Phone) is offered as

an alternative method of payment should a motorist for any reason be unable to make a valid

payment at the machine.

Excel is acknowledging that I paid for parking , do I include this in my defence?

Absolutely YES MENTION THIS and the fact that they are well known for machines that only take the first few digits, with Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander saying this year that it was 'a problem that needs to be tackled' in the new Code of Practice. RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: 'it's abundantly clear from the multitude of examples that some parking companies are wrongly demanding 'fines' from drivers who have legitimately paid to park. Whether it's a faulty payment machine that records the wrong vehicle registration or an innocent mistake keying in their number plate, these people shouldn't have to pay the £100 parking charge notices they are sent.'

https://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/national/25105157.thousands-sent-parking-tickets-payment-machines-set-trap-people/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14634323/amp/Drivers-trapped-faulty-ticket-machines-thousands-sent-fines.html

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/consumer/excel-parking-ex-patrol-officer-reveals-his-horrible-ticketing-tactics-at-sheffield-firm-5002256

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/excel-parking-daily-complaints-about-broomhill-site-4414470

Noenoe

Good evening , am I on the right track for para 2 and 3 . Kind regards 

2. The allegations and sums claimed are vague. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. Interest should be disallowed. The delay in bringing proceedings has prejudiced the Defendant’s ability to retrieve evidence. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct with further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant admits being both registered keeper and driver.

3. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s full vehicle registration was not recorded. On one occasion the Defendant had to enter the registration multiple times before the machine accepted it. The Defendant’s reference to re-entering the registration was not an admission of fault but evidence of faulty machines.

Valid tickets were purchased on all occasions. The Claimant has not proved non-payment. Minor keying errors or machine faults where payment was made do not create liability (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). Any ticketing issue lies with the Claimant’s system, not the Defendant. The Defendant acted in good faith. The Claimant suffered no financial loss

Government and motoring bodies recognise unfair penalties on paying drivers. In 2025, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander stated this is “a problem that needs to be tackled”. RAC policy head Simon Williams confirmed drivers who pay should not face £100 charges due to machine faults or minor input errors. This claim exemplifies that abuse.

Cause of Action Estoppel / Abuse of Process. This claim repeats claim no. [xxxx], involving the same parties, car park, dates, and alleged breach. Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), it should be struck out. Courts have held (Arnold v NatWest [1991]; Henderson v Henderson [1843]; Aldi v WSP [2008]; Henley v Bloom [2010]) that a party cannot bring a second action for the same issue and must raise all related claims at once. Bringing duplicate claims is an abuse of process and may attract sanctions.