Excel Birmingham and a case of poor lighting

torontoboy45 · 27 November 2016 at 3:29PM

Oh dear.

My friend parked up and entered £3 into the ticket machine for 24hr parking. A ticket was issued, which she displayed. But.......there was a problem which she didn't spot: the machine only registered £2, which gave just 4hrs parking. A PCN issued.

He insists that £3 was entered into the machine. He didn't check the ticket. A poorly-lit car park during the hours of darkness.

This isn't looking good. No evidence that the correct payment was made and a fail to check the ticket details.

Doe hehave any grounds for appeal?

I could really do with some help on this.

Thanks.

Redx · 27 November 2016 at 3:33PM

the NEWBIES sticky thread tells you about appealing (help)

they say not enough money was put into the machine , she says otherwise , stalemate

its either pay up or let a court decide , but in future she needs to check any receipt to ensure she gets what was paid for , poor lighting or not (there are lights inside a car , which excel and a judge might point out)

the RK may win on legal arguments, but I doubt the keeper (or driver) would win with the sorry saga above

Quentin · 27 November 2016 at 3:34PM

Follow the advice in the newbies faq thread on how to go about the appeal

A golden rule is never identify the driver!

So edit your OP to remove the ID of the driver asap

Coupon-mad · 27 November 2016 at 4:10PM

This isn't looking good. No evidence that the correct payment was made and a fail to check the ticket details.

Doe he have any grounds for appeal?

The keeper appeals, not implying who was driving.

THAT IS VITAL WITH EXCEL. THEY CAN'T HOLD A KEEPER LIABLE SO THIS APPROACH PROTECTS HIM.

Don't let him ignore this advice, we know what we are talking about. Excel sue people and keepers have a defence that wins. Drivers would find it harder (and no, the keeper does not have to name the driver, under any law).

And please, please, let's not hear 'oh it might be easier to pay.' NONONONONONO! And more no.

torontoboy45 · 19 January 2017 at 2:05PM

Bumping this up, as the threat piece arrived in the post today.

Excel has graciously allowed me 21 days (I imagined it to be 28) to appeal from the date of letter.

I'm in no rush. I'll leave this for a couple of weeks before using the appeal template in the sticky. Of course, I won't be revealing the ID of the driver.

A bit of research and - yes - the IAS does indeed seem a waste of time, but that is where this I'm most likely headed as I want to demonstrate to a DJ that I've jumped through all the hoops if this goes anywhere near court.

I'll keep researching this. Thanks for the advice so far. I'll keep you updated.

P.S. Coupon-mad's advice seems sound but can it really be that simple ( i.e. No keeper liability )? If this is a killer point isn't that enough in itself? Just asking, mind.

Quentin · 19 January 2017 at 4:05PM

You have been advised that providing you don't reveal who was driving they will fail at court

Read up in the newbies thread why you are advised not to go to IAS. (As you losing at IAS gives an unnecessary advantage for the ppc to show a judge!)

torontoboy45 · 19 January 2017 at 5:36PM

Quentin wrote: »

You have been advised that providing you don't reveal who was driving they will fail at court

Read up in the newbies thread why you are advised not to go to IAS. (As you losing at IAS gives an unnecessary advantage for the ppc to show a judge!)

Point about IAS taken but, conversely, the ppc could argue that I refused to use a form of Appeal when offered. Just thinking.

Looking over on the parking prankster blog I see the scammers throw Elliot vs laoke into the mix. I hope this can be proved irrelevant in court as easily as some have suggested. Transcripts of cases where the DJ has rubbished this non-precedent would be useful. Do you or anyone else know where I can access these?r

Pugnator · 19 January 2017 at 6:31PM

torontoboy45 wrote: »

Point about IAS taken but, conversely, the ppc could argue that I refused to use a form of Appeal when offered. Just thinking.

Looking over on the parking prankster blog I see the scammers throw Elliot vs laoke into the mix. I hope this can be proved irrelevant in court as easily as some have suggested. Transcripts of cases where the DJ has rubbished this non-precedent would be useful. Do you or anyone else know where I can access these?r

Excel will do that for you. They'll likely include EvL in their court bundle (if it goes that far) The transcript proves it's irrelevant. You just need to let the judge read it and point out it's an S172 criminal offence where the defendant was convicted based on forensic evidence and an eye witness.

If they can prove that you're case is a criminal offence, plus they have forensic evidence, AND an eye witness account that shows you were the driver then your happy to accept that EvL may be relevant. Otherwise all they're proving to the judge is they know nothing about the law, standards of evidence or small claims procedure.

Coupon-mad · 20 January 2017 at 2:43PM

torontoboy45 wrote: »

Point about IAS taken but, conversely, the ppc could argue that I refused to use a form of Appeal when offered. Just thinking.

And you could include this in any defence (this is a bargepole version - hat tip to him - I also use similar words in defences I write, only lengthier and I tend not to use the word 'incestuous'!):

I did not send a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the International Parking Community (IPC). My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the Claimant’s legal representatives. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

Transcripts of cases where the DJ has rubbished this non-precedent would be useful. Do you or anyone else know where I can access these?r

Not all cases have a transcript but a few do (they are very costly to apply for). Google 'Parking Prankster case law' and you will find those that are so far available.

torontoboy45 · 27 January 2017 at 5:55PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And you could include this in any defence (this is a bargepole version - hat tip to him - I also use similar words in defences I write, only lengthier and I tend not to use the word 'incestuous'!):

I did not send a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the International Parking Community (IPC). My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the Claimant’s legal representatives. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

Not all cases have a transcript but a few do (they are very costly to apply for). Google 'Parking Prankster case law' and you will find those that are so far available.

Thanks for that, c-m. One for the file.

The 'soft appeal' went off today. The template in the stickie was used together with a reference to dodgy ticketing machines. It will be rejected, of course, so we're happy to sit back and await more threats before being offered a gig in court.

After trawling through this and other sites I'm a bit surprised at Excel's reluctance to rely on POFA, settling instead on the irrelevant EvL case. Are there any other PPC's following the same route? And why would Excel go for something as unreliable as this?

I'm genuinely interested in this.

beamerguy · 27 January 2017 at 6:10PM

torontoboy45 wrote: »

Thanks for that, c-m. One for the file.

The 'soft appeal' went off today. The template in the stickie was used together with a reference to dodgy ticketing machines. It will be rejected, of course, so we're happy to sit back and await more threats before being offered a gig in court.

After trawling through this and other sites I'm a bit surprised at Excel's reluctance to rely on POFA, settling instead on the irrelevant EvL case. Are there any other PPC's following the same route? And why would Excel go for something as unreliable as this?

I'm genuinely interested in this.

In a recent case reported by the Parking Prankster the judge asked the same question, the legal rep did not know the answer, doubt Excel know either as it does them no good.

Answers only on a postcard

A judge has also said that EvL IS irrevelant so not much going for Excel or the legal predators they use.

Excel Birmingham and a case of poor lighting

Comments

Categories

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