Defence Vs Excel Parking Services

boo2thesystem

Background: Parked car in carpark. Typed in full reg and paid for parking ticket, then displayed. Received charge in post. Appealed with ticket, Excel denied appeal as only first letter of reg was displayed on ticket (machine error). ELMS legal named in documents.

Particulars of Claim:

The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendant's vehicle, [REG], was identified in the [CAR PARK] on the 04/02/2026 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked without purchasing a valid Pay & Display ticket for VRM. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and condition upon entering the private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely, a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

ISSUE DATE: 02 SEP 2026

Acknowledgment of service submitted: 20/09/2026

3. The Defendant was not “Parked without purchasing a valid Pay & Display ticket for VRM.” As the Defendant purchased a Pay & Display ticket and displayed it in their vehicle. The Defendant entered their full vehicle registration into the parking machine but the ticket only issued the first letter. The Defendant stated these facts in their primary appeal to Excel Parking Services Limited on 03-07-26 and was denied.

Any help greatly appreciated

Gr1pr

The Following characters are the banned on MCOL , so need changing

" < >

Those payment machines are notorious for these errors, especially ECP as well as Excel Parking , ECP are currently being investigated by the CMA for this and other issues

MrJenkinsEsq

You could expand it to include a few more angles, something like this.

The breach alleged is denied. A valid ticket was purchased. The driver entered the full VRM, paid at the Claimant's terminal and displayed the ticket, which printed only the first letter of the VRM. The driver relied on the ticket issued in leaving the vehicle. The driver's appeal with the ticket was refused. It is not admitted that any VRM entry term was part of the pleaded contract or adequately brought to the driver's attention. The Claimant is put to proof, by the terminal's timestamped event log and fault and maintenance records, of what was keyed, that the terminal worked correctly and that it warned of or queried a one-character entry, which cannot be a DVLA mark. The Claimant cannot rely on its own default. As a DVLA data user it knew such a payment could match no registered vehicle and, if as believed it logs arrivals by ANPR, which vehicles were present at payment. If it accepted a one-character entry without warning, whatever was keyed, the service was supplied without reasonable care and skill. The driver relies on that breach against the claim. Alternatively the charge is a penalty, out of all proportion to any legitimate interest. It is the same sum demanded from a motorist who pays nothing.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 02/09/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 05/10/26

MrJenkinsEsq

I've had a go at a skeleton argument. It's not something that's filed until witness statement stage, and it's optional. I've assumed a fair amount, including that the defence above is used, and the bold bracketed bits need completing, so don't just file it as is. Appendix 2 need not be filed, all the citations are public. I don't know how any judge could hold a one-shot VRM entry term as fair.

https://drive.proton.me/urls/Z3F4VH35DM#U0v3FDDILVjU