Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 27th Nov 16, 2:29 PM
    • 1,023Posts
    • 2,129Thanks
    torontoboy45
    Excel Birmingham and a case of poor lighting
    • #1
    • 27th Nov 16, 2:29 PM
    Excel Birmingham and a case of poor lighting 27th Nov 16 at 2:29 PM
    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.
    Last edited by torontoboy45; 27-11-2016 at 2:37 PM. Reason: On advice
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 27th Nov 16, 2:33 PM
    • 18,451 Posts
    • 23,372 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 27th Nov 16, 2:33 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Nov 16, 2:33 PM
    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
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 27th Nov 16, 2:34 PM
    • 36,270 Posts
    • 20,527 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 27th Nov 16, 2:34 PM
    • #3
    • 27th Nov 16, 2:34 PM
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Nov 16, 3:10 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,596 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 16, 3:10 PM
    • #4
    • 27th Nov 16, 3:10 PM
    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.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 19th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    • #5
    • 19th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    • #5
    • 19th Jan 17, 1:05 PM
    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.
    Last edited by torontoboy45; 19-01-2017 at 1:12 PM. Reason: Clarity.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 19th Jan 17, 3:05 PM
    • 36,270 Posts
    • 20,527 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 19th Jan 17, 3:05 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Jan 17, 3:05 PM
    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
    • By torontoboy45 19th Jan 17, 4:36 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    • #7
    • 19th Jan 17, 4:36 PM
    • #7
    • 19th Jan 17, 4:36 PM
    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!)
    Originally posted by Quentin
    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
    • By Pugnator 19th Jan 17, 5:31 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Pugnator
    • #8
    • 19th Jan 17, 5:31 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Jan 17, 5:31 PM
    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
    Originally posted by torontoboy45
    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.
    Last edited by Pugnator; 28-02-2018 at 12:06 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jan 17, 1:43 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,596 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 20th Jan 17, 1:43 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Jan 17, 1:43 PM
    Point about IAS taken but, conversely, the ppc could argue that I refused to use a form of Appeal when offered. Just thinking.
    Originally posted by torontoboy45
    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!!!8217;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!!!8217;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.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 27th Jan 17, 4:55 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    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 Claimantís 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 Claimantís 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.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    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
    • By beamerguy 27th Jan 17, 5:10 PM
    • 7,772 Posts
    • 10,354 Thanks
    beamerguy
    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.
    Originally posted by torontoboy45
    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.
    Last edited by beamerguy; 27-01-2017 at 5:26 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 13th Feb 17, 3:30 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    So the rejection letter arrives, as expected.

    It seems somebody called ' J George' actually read the appeal, judging by the letter's contents.

    After waffling on about the motorists' responsibility to ensure they check the expiry time on the p and d ticket ( while staying silent on the operator's responsibility to ensure their ticket machines are in good working order ) she moves to one of the (template) appeal points:

    'Whilst you have made a request under Principle 6 of the DPA 1998, unfortunately this does not mean you can simply demand us to cease processing your information and you fail to explain or meet the requirement s for a Section 10 Notice within your letter and I will detail below the reasons why'.

    Then some stuff about the ICO website.

    Then 'Your request in principle can only be dealt with if the processing of information 'causes unwarranted damage or distress' and you must outline this in your request which you have failed to do'.

    Then an invite to appeal to the IAS, which - I have to agree - is just a grubby little rubber-stamping operation.

    Finally: 'please note that further costs may be incurred should it be necessary for us to subsequently recover any outstanding charge using debt recovery and/or court action'. 'Debt recovery' costs sounds a bit like double delivery.

    To anyone's knowledge: is this the first time Excel have gone out of their way to refute a point in coupon-mad's excellent appeal template?

    I can easily see how these shysters extract cash from the uninformed or vulnerable, with this shouty, bullying tone.

    But not the RK, who will remain with this until the day in court.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Feb 17, 3:47 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,596 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    is this the first time Excel have gone out of their way to refute a point in coupon-mad's excellent appeal template?
    First time I have seen that.

    PPCs are clearly unhappy at all the potential DPA breach cases coming their way, and planned counter-claims should they try a claim.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 7th Apr 17, 3:43 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    So the DCA threats have arrived.

    The first artificially inflated the 'charge' to £160, the second tells of a generous client who is willing 'to accept' £136.

    I bet he is.

    I made it clear in my appeal that I wouldn't be responding to a DCA but I'm really itching to fire off an email making it clear that I've received quality advice and my defence will be full-on if this gets to court. Is this advisable?

    I'm genuinely surprised - and disgusted - at the 'demanding money with menaces' MO of this dirty little outfit. I've spent a few hrs studying up on Excel and their debt collection/ legal goons. I'm not easily shocked but reading of their many tactics/tricks left me light-headed. I'm even more 'game on' than when the NTK arrived.
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 3rd May 17, 1:38 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    Bumping this up - not because of any major developments, it's just that I have a quick question.

    3 demands received from an outfit calling itself 'Debt Recovery Plus Ltd'.

    Today a demand from new kid on the block 'Zenith Collections' offering to settle for £79.99 (down from £136).

    So, Excel has shared the RK's details with two (ostensibly) different third parties. By doing this has Excel acted correctly (in a legal sense)?


    Thanks for looking.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 3rd May 17, 2:37 PM
    • 4,494 Posts
    • 4,522 Thanks
    DoaM
    Zenith = DRP from another desk in the same office.

    All covered in the NEWBIES thread.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 4th May 17, 9:14 AM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    D'oh.

    There it is, right there in post no.4 in the sticky.

    Bear with me, if you will. I'm still on a learning curve.
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 22nd Dec 17, 12:52 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    The usual flurry of BWL threats and bluster. All ignored, as per the advice on here.

    Today, another from the clowns, which confirms the drivers' file is 'placed on hold whilst we query this matter with our client'.

    Shame. We were hoping for an LBCCC. I'm more than up for arguing this one as lay rep in front of a judge. Maybe I still will.

    But does anyone else think they're bottling out by referring back to the client?
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 22nd Dec 17, 1:14 PM
    • 7,772 Posts
    • 10,354 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The usual flurry of BWL threats and bluster. All ignored, as per the advice on here.

    Today, another from the clowns, which confirms the drivers' file is 'placed on hold whilst we query this matter with our client'.

    Shame. We were hoping for an LBCCC. I'm more than up for arguing this one as lay rep in front of a judge. Maybe I still will.

    But does anyone else think they're bottling out by referring back to the client?
    Originally posted by torontoboy45
    You must have realised by now that they are idiots.
    So much proof on record

    Who knows what their wisdom will bring forth ?
    One wrong move and they will be whooped in court again

    Play their game. BWLegal must really get out of the beds
    of scammers
    Last edited by beamerguy; 22-12-2017 at 1:28 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • torontoboy45
    • By torontoboy45 17th May 18, 12:09 PM
    • 1,023 Posts
    • 2,129 Thanks
    torontoboy45
    So, after 18 months and playing some ping pong emailing with the clowns at bwlegal, drawing their attention to their deficiencies and the dishonourable mention they received courtesy of the HoC last Feb, the Letter of Claim has arrived.

    Would someon be good enough to look over the following?

    Dear Sirs

    Thank you for your letter dated X.

    in previous correspondence with your Client I asked to be provided with details of the basis on which the money was being claimed, including all photographs of the vehicle at the relevant time. None was forthcoming.

    You have now sent a Letter of Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence I requested as long ago as Jan 2018. It doesn't even say what the cause of action is, nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your Client intends to rely on or enclose copies of such evidence.

    The action on the part of your Client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct, with which you - as solicitors - must surely be familiar with ( and with which your Client - a serial litigator of small claims- must also be familiar). As you (and your Client) must know the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of claim. Its express purpose is to assist all parties in understanding the claim and their respective position in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings and using up valuable court time.

    Nobody, including your Client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your Client cannot simply refuse to provide the relevant information until this matter reaches court.

    I require your Client to comply with its obligations by sending the following information/documents:

    1. An explanation of the cause of action.

    2. Whether they are pursuin me as Driver or Keeper.

    3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4, POFA 2012.

    4. What the details of the claim are ( where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed ).

    5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim.

    6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver.

    7. A plan clearly showing where any signage was displayed.

    8. Details of any signs displayed ( size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed.

    9. If they have added anything to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(c).

    If your Client does not provide me with this information I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham and Green (2012), EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Ltd v The Lark West Club Ltd (Part 20), Buxton Associates (2003), EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd and Peter Dann Ltd (2007) EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of proceedings pursuant paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw the court's attention to the fact that I have expressly requested this information from your Client as early as Jan 2017.

    Until your Client complies with its obligations and provides this information I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and consider my position in relation to it. Should your Client prematurely attempt any proceedings I will seek an immediate stay, pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and order that this information is provided.

    Your faithfully,

    Torontoboy45.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,066Posts Today

8,528Users online

Martin's Twitter