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
    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 26th Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    • 41Posts
    • 44Thanks
    TheRed
    Excel Parking - Incorrect name on Claim form
    • #1
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    Excel Parking - Incorrect name on Claim form 26th Mar 18 at 8:23 PM
    Hi,

    Family member has been going through some issues over the years. The rest of the family have recently become aware and are trying to tackle the issues one by one, which leads me to this post.

    A claim form has been received, issued through MCL by Excel parking for failing to adhere with terms and conditions at a pay and display car park. Issue date of 03/18.

    I have not acknowledged service yet (on their behalf) because I wanted to clarify something beforehand.

    The first name on the claim form is incorrect. The surname and the address are correct. Does this have any bearing on the validity of this claim?

    thanks
    Last edited by TheRed; 27-03-2018 at 8:31 PM. Reason: Removing potential identifying information
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 26th Mar 18, 8:48 PM
    • 7,214 Posts
    • 6,719 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:48 PM
    • #2
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:48 PM
    With so little information I would guess that the name on the claim form is exactly the same as the name on the Vehicle's V5c (log book).
    Can you confirm that?

    Has the Defendant received any other letters/forms about this incident?

    When did the alleged parking incident take place?

    Who are MCL?
    .
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 26th Mar 18, 8:50 PM
    • 2,267 Posts
    • 6,590 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #3
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:50 PM
    • #3
    • 26th Mar 18, 8:50 PM
    Hi,

    Family member has been going through some issues over the years. The rest of the family have recently become aware and are trying to tackle the issues one by one, which leads me to this post.

    A claim form has been received, issued through MCL by Excel parking for failing to adhere with terms and conditions at a pay and display car park. Issue date of 12/03/18.

    I have not acknowledged service yet (on their behalf) because I wanted to clarify something beforehand.

    The first name on the claim form is incorrect. The surname and the address are correct. Does this have any bearing on the validity of this claim?

    thanks
    Originally posted by TheRed
    It depends.

    Does the person named on the form actually exist, as a separate entity from the person who is the intended defendant?

    Or is it just a slight variation of their Christian name?

    The reason may be, that the keeper's name is incorrectly recorded at the DVLA. If so, it can be amended under the slip rule.

    But if it's a completely different person, they should simply defend on the basis that they are not the registered keeper, not the driver, and therefore cannot possibly have any liability to the Claimant.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 33. Lost 10.
    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 26th Mar 18, 9:35 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    TheRed
    • #4
    • 26th Mar 18, 9:35 PM
    • #4
    • 26th Mar 18, 9:35 PM
    Struggling to get the quote function working, so I can't quote your original posts but ...

    MCL = Money Claim Online

    It's not my vehicle so I will check with the owner what the log book says. The name is a misspelling of the christian name. Obviously not wishing to disclose too many identifiable details it's difficult to explain. It's not like Johnathan has been spelt Jonathan, it's more akin to Brian being spelt Braan.

    Letter before claim dated 01/2018 - Family member hasn't been living at their address since last autumn owing to the aforementioned personal issues, so letter wasn't seen until this month.

    Particulars of claim dated received this week.

    Date of alleged incident 04/2017
    Last edited by TheRed; 27-03-2018 at 8:31 PM. Reason: Removing potential identifying information
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 18, 11:55 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 26th Mar 18, 11:55 PM
    • #5
    • 26th Mar 18, 11:55 PM
    OK a minor error then. Forget it.

    The person needs to URGENTLY do the MCOL AOS, as shown in pictures in the NEWBIES thread. then show us their defence, or you show us if you are doing this for them (but in their name, of course).

    If they need to alert the court to a different address, IMHO this needs to be in the defence at the start.

    If it's a BW Legal claim, you will find LOADS to crib from here, by searching BW Legal Excel defence.
    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.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 27th Mar 18, 9:18 AM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,979 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 27th Mar 18, 9:18 AM
    • #6
    • 27th Mar 18, 9:18 AM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 27th Mar 18, 8:25 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    TheRed
    • #7
    • 27th Mar 18, 8:25 PM
    • #7
    • 27th Mar 18, 8:25 PM
    Log book shows correct spelling of name. Point seems moot after reading coupon-mad's post.

    AOS completed today. Issue Date of claim is 12/03/2018, but date of AOS is 27/03/18. Is the correct last date for filing defence 10/04/18?

    As for defence, that's proving difficult. She doesn't recall anything to do with the incident and doesn't recall any other correspondence other than the letters I have before me.

    The particulars of claim that were sent under separate cover from that of the claim form don't state the name of the legal firm, just a persons name who signed it and an address. From a quick Google it appears to be VCS doing the legal work.

    The particulars of claim essentially just states a charge notice was issued for failing to adhere to advertised terms and conditions. It doesn't say in what way, or what term or condition was not adhered to.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Mar 18, 8:59 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 27th Mar 18, 8:59 PM
    • #8
    • 27th Mar 18, 8:59 PM
    You have 33 days from the claim form date, maximum (but don't push it to that day). I know you said they sent separate POC but the MCOL system doesn't realise that, so work from the claim form date, to be safe.

    As for defence, that's proving difficult.
    You have the location and will know if it's about permits (residential car park) or pay & display (retail).

    Copy another similar one and ask for further and better particulars, in the defence near the start.

    Show us.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-04-2018 at 11:04 PM.
    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.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Apr 18, 11:05 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 18, 11:05 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 18, 11:05 PM
    Hi,

    Family member has been going through some issues over the years. The rest of the family have recently become aware and are trying to tackle the issues one by one, which leads me to this post.

    A claim form has been received, issued through MCL by Excel parking for failing to adhere with terms and conditions at a pay and display car park. Issue date of 03/18.

    I have not acknowledged service yet (on their behalf) because I wanted to clarify something beforehand.

    The first name on the claim form is incorrect. The surname and the address are correct. Does this have any bearing on the validity of this claim?
    Originally posted by TheRed
    Let's see the draft defence, this is winnable so don't throw it away now, you do not have long:

    Issue Date of claim is 12/03/2018
    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.

    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 9th Apr 18, 6:23 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    TheRed
    The family members life is spiraling out of control, it appears. I'm trying to manage many, many issues in their life, finances being just one. It's looking like there may be more parking issues from the last year, amongst CCJ's they have no knowledge of.. and on and on and on. So apologies for the delay in getting a draft defence prepared.

    Before I write it all up, I've tried to identify the key arguments to their defence and the main points appear to me to be:

    1. The alleged incident was April 2017. Defendant has no knowledge or recollection of ever being issued a parking charge notice. Nor can the defendant recall who was driving their vehicle on the day in question. The defendant was present in the foyer of the Manchester Arena when the bomb exploded during the Manchester Arena Bombings shortly after the alleged incident and has since been suffering from PTSD and depression affecting their memory, and is currently receiving counselling to help them recover from the events in Manchester.

    2. The particulars of claim supplied by the claimant are vague. The claimant doesn't detail which of the terms and conditions are supposed to have been breached, further hindering any chance of the claimant being able to recall the alleged incident and hampering any necessary defence as required. The claimant has also not provided a copy of the terms and conditions for the location, and signage for these terms, as they were in April 2017.

    3. The claimant has not established their contractual right to recover any parking related charges for the location.

    4. To my knowledge no NTK was issued, but one may well have been. Is it worth citing POFA schedule 4 re: the NTK?

    5. The same situation with regards to any LBA letter. There may have been one, but I've never seen one.

    6. Overall poor exchange of information from a serial litigant, contrary to the pre-action protocol for debt claims? No disclosure of evidence, sufficient information or key documents to help determine the validity of any claims made by the claimant.


    ...opinions?

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 6:26 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    4. To my knowledge no NTK was issued, but one may well have been. Is it worth citing POFA schedule 4 re: the NTK?
    Yes because Excel do not use POFA wording and can't hold keepers liable.

    I would also say that the Defendant is unaware of any compliant LBC being served prior to this claim.

    The Defendant should put the Claimant to strict proof of clear & prominent signage and the alleged contract and contravention, since it is denied that any driver of this car owes any parking charge.

    The Defendant avers that there is evidence that Excel's machines are unreliable and the VRN data held is routinely faulty, and transcripts will be adduced as evidence to this effect. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions. The D does not even know if the C is alleging 'no payment' or 'not displaying a ticket' or 'paying too little/expired parking tariff' or even an incorrect VRN in their system, which is known to often be caused by the machine itself.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 6:31 PM.
    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.

    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 13th Apr 18, 10:27 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    TheRed
    thoughts?

    1. The central tenet to claimant’s claim is that the defendant breached the terms and conditions of a parking development. The claimant has not disclosed these supposed terms and conditions, nor informed anyone which term or condition was breached by the defendant. Separate particulars of claim have been received in addition to those stated on the claim form. Yet again the claimant failed to detail which term or condition has supposedly been breached by the defendant. The particulars of claim are vague and do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5, and are in contravention of Court Procedure Rule 16.4 1(a). The particulars of this claim are so vague and sparse in their detail as to what specific action the defendant is supposed to have undertaken that I believe the claim falls foul of Practice Direction 3A 1.4. As a result I believe Court Procedure Rule 3.4(c) should apply in this case.

    2. The claimant states they manage a parking scheme at the stated location where terms and conditions were supposedly breached. The claimant has failed to provide a copy of the contract or agreement as required by Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). The claimant has also failed to given any indication of any contractual authority they have to operate at the location as required by Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1. According to the claimant’s particulars of claim their role is to erect signs only and therefore they have no right to bring this claim.


    3. The claim form is the first correspondence regarding this matter the defendant has received. The claimant states the defendant has been issued with a “charge notice”. The defendant has not had sight of this “charge notice”. The defendant has also never received a Notice to Keeper in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (POFA). The defendant’s failure to comply with POFA Schedule 4 6(b), means the defendant does not have a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle in question as per POFA Schedule 4 4(2a). The defendant is also unaware of any compliant Letter Before Claim being served prior to this claim being made.

    4. The claimant's claim relates to a date that was over a year ago. The defendant has no knowledge of ever being issued a parking charge notice. Nor can the defendant recall who was driving their vehicle on the day in question or if the vehicle even visited the location. The defendant was present in the foyer of the Manchester Arena when the bomb exploded during the Manchester Arena Bombings shortly after the alleged incident and has since been suffering from PTSD and depression affecting their memory, and is currently receiving counselling to help them recover from the events in Manchester.

    5. The claimant states their role is to erect signs explaining the terms and conditions associated with parking. The claimant has not provided any evidence or proof of their clear and prominent signage as it was in April 2017, detailing the alleged terms and conditions.

    6.The Defendant avers that there is evidence that Excel's machines are unreliable and the VRN data held is routinely faulty, and transcripts will be adduced as evidence to this effect. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions. The defendant does not even know if the claimant is alleging 'no payment' or 'not displaying a ticket' or 'paying too little/expired parking tariff' or even an incorrect VRN in their system, which is known to often be caused by the machine itself.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 18, 1:32 AM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,075 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think that's good, and I would just add the usual headings and data at the top and statement of truth at the end (and the Defendant's physical signature and date of course).

    Maybe just a few more points, if you wish:


    7. The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, falling foul of the established 'penalty rule', as well as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 tests of transparency and fairness, with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 distinguished.

    8. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    9. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

    Signed

    Date
    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.

    • TheRed
    • By TheRed 30th Apr 18, 8:42 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    TheRed
    DQ received.

    Claim form, particulars of claim,and their DQ all signed by different individuals. Is this of any significance or consequence, or is it permitted and typical in these situations where it is a company that is the claimant?
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 30th Apr 18, 9:13 PM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Claim form, particulars of claim,and their DQ all signed by different individuals. Is this of any significance or consequence
    No. As long as they're signed by someone who has the necessary authority to sign either for, or on behalf of the claimant. Such as a manager, director or person in a senior position.

    CPR 22 and the practice direction states that the person signing must also state their name, name of their company and their position in the company.
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

1,197Posts Today

7,605Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin