I probably haven't handled this terribly well (ignored it for 3 years - actually it went strangely quiet until Parking Eye vs Beavis!) but now I get a day in court...

I've just received a sheaf of 'evidence' (from BW Legal acting for Excel) that has been submitted to court (which I would link but I can't as new forum user).

I'm no lawyer but it's got more than a few holes in it so I'll have a go at making a case and if the judge decides I do in fact owe these cowboys THREE HUNDRED QUID so be it I guess

My main question at this stage is whether I should I submit a written defence or just verbally on the day? I'd probably prefer to do the latter but not sure what the protocol is?


This is the only correspondence I've ever sent, relatively recently dated 07/02/2017:



Dear Sir or Madam

Please be advised that I will be defending this case.

In your correspondence you have kindly brought to my attention the case of Parking Eye Limited vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 in which the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest, specifically to efficiently manage the car park for the benefit of the generality of users of the retail outlets. Given that I was patronising a restaurant served by the car park, that there is no ‘P & D Expiry’ entered on the ticket and I am able to evidence that I returned to my vehicle within an acceptable grace period as required by the IPC Code of Practice I shall contend that the circumstances of this case do not justify either the initial penalty of £100 or the escalating costs pursued.

Furthermore, the case law deriving from UKSC 67 did not exist in February 2014 which is presumably why you have not brought a case until June 2016, 2 years and 4 months after the alleged incident. I have submitted a Freedom of Information Request to HM Courts & Tribunals Service for details of cases brought before the courts since the ruling of the Supreme Court in November 2015 in order to demonstrate an unscrupulous opportunism to pursue historic Parking Charge Notices where the particulars of the case have so little in common with UKSC 67 as to make reliance on that case irrelevant.

I wish to note also that my surname has been consistently misspelled on all correspondence meaning that it is likely I have not received all communication on this matter.

Regards