Win against Excel Parking for Smyth Street Wakefield in Court

FlowerMac · 30 August 2018 at 10:49PM

A win in Court against Excel for their Smyth Street car park in Wakefield. They launched court proceedings via their 'sister company' VCS. However, this is a separate company as listed in Companies House. Excel have the contract with the landowner and are considered to be the Creditor. .. the company legally entitled to enforce parking charges. VCS had no contract with the landowner and were not the Creditor .. the judge dismissed their case on this basis. Also check for planning permission and advertising consent .. lack of advertising consent is illegal. ANPR cameras on poles require planning permission. If a backdated claim check google maps for evidence of insufficient lighting and signage. Know the difference about how the Beavis case relates to private parking and was based on commercial justification. This event occurred within a retail park with the offer of free parking for a limited period. As the driver overstayed their time it was deemed this could affect the footfall to the retail units (Commercial justification) .. therefore the parking charge was necessary to deter others from overstaying and to also manage the car park, This is entirely different to a private parking company who enforce parking charges with no retail units involved. Download a copy of the BPA or the IPC code of practice and check for any breaches of code of conduct. Do not ignore any communication from the Court .. failure to offer a defence to the court within the time specified results in a default judgement against you and the parking company automatically win.

Coupon-mad · 30 August 2018 at 11:18PM

Yes that's all true, and we see wins here 99% of the time based on much of that, which is well known on the forum.

Well done - assuming you won this case by turning up in person, seeing as no-one needs a lay rep or to pay for any help, of course.

These cases are winnable at no cost - hope you are telling us you did exactly that. Forgive me for asking but that wall of text reminds me of some sort of press release...if so, we are just not interested as people can win these fairly easily, no sweat.

If you did it yourself, well done!

bargepole · 31 August 2018 at 12:23AM

To be clear, the case described above was won because the company bringing the court proceedings (VCS) were a different legal entity from the company whose signage (Excel) formed the purported contract between the PPC and the motorist. Therefore, VCS were not a party to the contract, and had no standing to sue in their own name.

The lack of advertising or planning consent is a red herring; this case was not decided on that point, and we are unaware of any motorist winning a case on that point.

… we see wins here 99% of the time based on much of that, which is well known on the forum.

Well done - assuming you won this case by turning up in person, seeing as no-one needs a lay rep or to pay for any help, of course.

Much as I respect C-M's opinion and reputation, I'm afraid I can't agree with the above. The mythical "99%" is a selective figure, and doesn't take into account the many OPs who disappear off the radar after their court hearing. My stats show a win rate of 77%, as possibly one of the most experienced lay reps in the country for parking cases. If the 99% was true, I may as well hang up my briefcase, and direct everyone to MSE.

Although the free resources on this forum will enable anyone prepared to do their research to fight the PPCs on their own, there will always be a certain percentage who are too busy, too lazy, too stupid, or with insufficient grasp of English, who would rather pay someone to do the legwork for them.

Coupon-mad · 31 August 2018 at 1:11AM

Please show me the 'many OPs who disappear AFTER a court hearing', bargepole?

I have seen just a few, I can count on one hand, this year, who didn't report back after an actual hearing.

possibly one of the most experienced lay reps in the country for parking cases.

Not just 'possibly' - you are. There is only you and Lamilad that this forum would recommend, and your experience goes back longer and with more cases.

Any other lay rep - categorically no.

Umkomaas · 31 August 2018 at 8:54AM

To be clear, the case described above was won because the company bringing the court proceedings (VCS) were a different legal entity from the company whose signage (Excel) formed the purported contract between the PPC and the motorist. Therefore, VCS were not a party to the contract, and had no standing to sue in their own name.

How can they make such a basic schoolboy error? And there are a number of other similar wrong-claimant cases in the pipeline that have passed through here of late.

Half_way · 31 August 2018 at 12:07PM

Another question: What on earth was one company doing in sharing personal data with another third party company ?
I assume that consent for such data sharing was not obtained, and/or there was no reasonable cause to share such data

Coupon-mad · 31 August 2018 at 2:01PM

As an aside, an aggressive company once shared my data with another company, and I am biding my time about that matter. I am advised that there is a lot you can do with such a DPA breach, including holding the officers of that company liable in their personal capacity, despite any Ltd status.

FlowerMac · 1 September 2018 at 2:44PM

Most certainly not a press release .. fought them in court myself. Just trying to assist anyone with a PCN or facing court action for Smyth Street Wakefield. As VCS have no traceable link to the landowner and the PCN's are being issued by VCS in this car park . ..does this render the PCN's illegal? Another point to consider. And facing the court isn't easy .. BW their solicitors present a dossier of intimidating legal jargon .. took me hours to research this so it pays to be well prepared .. you will be facing a trained solicitor. so it pays to be well prepared with your defence and to know the law.

FlowerMac · 1 September 2018 at 2:50PM

The lack of planning permission was most certainly not a 'red herring'. Wakefield Council have confirmed the site required planning permission. Furthermore, the lack of planning permission was one of the factors raised by the judge for Excel .. and I quote .. having a weak case. The more points raised in the defence the better.

FlowerMac · 1 September 2018 at 2:52PM

I agree with the breach of the Data Protection Act as regards to the passing of information .. currently looking into this .. will report back when I know more.

Coupon-mad · 1 September 2018 at 11:29PM

Well done to you!

Glad to hear you fought & won this single-handedly, please consider sticking around, reading court threads and joining us regulars in advising people.

Win against Excel Parking for Smyth Street Wakefield in Court

Comments

Categories

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