Need help with claim form Excel parking

dizzyheyjude · 18 March 2017 at 10:28AM

Hi all,

In Jan 2015 I received a PCN from Excel for parking on private land, I had purchased and displayed a ticket, one part of one of my wheels was out side of the bay and that's what the PCN was issued for.

I took photographs of this and also the CCTV camera in the car-park as the car next to me was parked at and angle meaning my car also had to be parked like this. I took pictures of the CCTV and asked them to look. I appealed the PCN with excel (sadly I did not research and and sent no official letters). They did not uphold the appeal. They passed it onto BW legal who sent letters to my work (the only address they had).

I have now received a claim form N1 from the court. I registered online to check it was real and it is. I need to submit the defense, the only problem is all of the letters are for free carparks or others and don't seem to help.

Please can somebody signpost me to a good letter. I don't want to pay but I am so scared of CCJ and ruining my impeccable credit rating.

Redx · 18 March 2017 at 11:30AM

they dont use CCTV , they use ANPR cameras

and you dont need a "letter" , you need to draft a defence , so have a look at other EXCEL and VCS cases (like the lamilad ones) and adapt your defence from those

each defence is bespoke , tailored to the actual case, so you wont find "templates", but you will find examples of live cases, or concluded cases, over the last 12 months (ignore anything older)

the vast majority of claims by excel are the PEEL CENTRE in Stockport, so look for any of those to start with , or the one in CHORLTON precinct

if you lose in court and pay (probably within 28 days) you wont get a CCJ and therefore it wont affect your impeccable "credit rating"

its not paying the judgement promptly that leads to a CCJ (you could say its a form of contempt of court)

the newbies sticky thread, post #2 , will help you with this, plus use the forum search box and suitable search words , including EXCEL , B W LEGAL etc

dizzyheyjude · 18 March 2017 at 11:44AM

Thanks for your reply, at the time of parking there was no ANPR camera in use was pointing down I took a pic, the lines have also been repainted. I'll take a pic of the signage also to see explicitly what it states about parking within the bay.

I'll try search for some letters, thanks.

Coupon-mad · 18 March 2017 at 4:41PM

dizzyheyjude wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, at the time of parking there was no ANPR camera in use was pointing down I took a pic, the lines have also been repainted. I'll take a pic of the signage also to see explicitly what it states about parking within the bay.

I'll try search for some letters, thanks.

Presumably you've read all the stuff about court claims & defences and the entire process, in post #2 of 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST'?

dizzyheyjude · 22 March 2017 at 11:04AM

Hi - after spending hours reading all of the threads on the NEWBIES section - most helpful might I add. I have acknowledged the court claim and have 28 days to submit my defence, I had a go at a defence letter and would appreciate any suggestions, advice or guidance.

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case In summary :

The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the motorist
The signage did not offer a genuine contract with the motorist
Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations
The Claimant has included a solicitor charge that was not incurred

The signage was not transparent.
Due to any combination of the above points, the Claimant has no case and the Defendant invites the Court to strike the matter out.

1. The Claimant manages the car park. The Claimant is not therefore the Land-owner. Neither has it claimed to be an Agent. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that it is merely a contractor. The Claimant has not therefore explained what authority it has to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.

2. A contract is absent with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorization stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.

4. The claimant did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.

b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.

I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending an email request to the claimant's solicitors on 20/03/2017.
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMTCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresentedconsumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

6. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and instruction hence incapable of binding the driver. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum. The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent my vehicle was parked between the lines. The signage did not indicate this must include all four wheels. A request was made to excel parking on (11.1.2016) to view the CCTV in the carpark to view how the vehicle next to the defendants was parked. This has never been acknowledged. The lines at the time of parking were broken and were not complete. I have evidence of this. New lines have now been laid.

Need help with claim form Excel parking

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free