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
    • FlowerMac
    • By FlowerMac 30th Aug 18, 10:49 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 21Thanks
    FlowerMac
    Win against Excel Parking for Smyth Street Wakefield in Court
    • #1
    • 30th Aug 18, 10:49 PM
    Win against Excel Parking for Smyth Street Wakefield in Court 30th Aug 18 at 10:49 PM
    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.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 18, 11:18 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 30th Aug 18, 11:18 PM
    • #2
    • 30th Aug 18, 11:18 PM
    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!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 30-08-2018 at 11:22 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.

    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 31st Aug 18, 12:23 AM
    • 2,369 Posts
    • 6,829 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #3
    • 31st Aug 18, 12:23 AM
    • #3
    • 31st Aug 18, 12:23 AM
    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.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am an associate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 18, 1:11 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 31st Aug 18, 1:11 AM
    • #4
    • 31st Aug 18, 1:11 AM
    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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 31-08-2018 at 1:14 AM.
    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 31st Aug 18, 8:54 AM
    • 19,383 Posts
    • 30,617 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 18, 8:54 AM
    • #5
    • 31st Aug 18, 8:54 AM
    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.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 31st Aug 18, 12:07 PM
    • 4,268 Posts
    • 6,057 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #6
    • 31st Aug 18, 12:07 PM
    • #6
    • 31st Aug 18, 12:07 PM
    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
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Aug 18, 2:01 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 31st Aug 18, 2:01 PM
    • #7
    • 31st Aug 18, 2:01 PM
    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.
    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.

    • FlowerMac
    • By FlowerMac 1st Sep 18, 2:44 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    • #8
    • 1st Sep 18, 2:44 PM
    Win against Excel parking Smyth Street
    • #8
    • 1st Sep 18, 2:44 PM
    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
    • By FlowerMac 1st Sep 18, 2:50 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    • #9
    • 1st Sep 18, 2:50 PM
    Excel parking smyth street win
    • #9
    • 1st Sep 18, 2:50 PM
    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
    • By FlowerMac 1st Sep 18, 2:52 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    excel parking smyth street win
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Sep 18, 11:29 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,332 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.

    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.

    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 1st Sep 18, 11:34 PM
    • 19,383 Posts
    • 30,617 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    and joining us regulars in advising people.
    Yes, please do. We can do with help from 'seasoned pros'. We have had a few new contributors join up in the fight of late. The more we have, no matter how minor the (knowledgeable) input, the further we push this stuff towards the precipice.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • FlowerMac
    • By FlowerMac 1st Sep 18, 11:57 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    Thank you .. will certainly remain as a contributor .. currently taking my treatment by Excel further as regards the law .. will let you know the outcome
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 2nd Sep 18, 7:26 AM
    • 2,369 Posts
    • 6,829 Thanks
    bargepole
    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.
    Originally posted by FlowerMac
    I can't agree with the above, I'm afraid.

    Whilst the Judge may well have considered that the lack of planning permission was a factor in the overall assessment of the PPC's case as being a weak one, I doubt whether he would have dismissed the claim on that point alone.

    Whenever I've raised this point in court, the Judge's response has always been to ask if the local authority has taken enforcement action against the PPC. If they haven't (and they hardly ever do), then no breach of planning regulations is established, and that point falls away.

    As for 'the more points raised in the defence the better', that simply doesn't fly. Every day on this forum I see Defences drafted by OPs of the 'kitchen sink' variety, spanning a ridiculously long number of paragraphs, many of them completely irrelevant.

    There is a danger that the real winning points will become lost in the 'spray and pray' garbage, and many Judges will view the whole thing as a 'technical' defence cribbed from online sources, which they've seen many times before, and dismiss out of hand.

    Very few Judges will bother to go through it all, and identify a point which may give them a reason to dismiss the claim.

    A decent Defence will focus on two or three key points, starting with a factual description of what actually happened on the day to cause the PCN to be issued, and leading with the strongest argument as to why the claim should be dismissed.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am an associate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • FlowerMac
    • By FlowerMac 2nd Sep 18, 2:28 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    I take your points on board and think you're right about the spray and pray garbage .. but can only speak from my own experience. Their solicitor was lambasted for the whole duration of the hearing .. my defence was length and factual but pertinent with 20 hours of research into the law. I wasn't criticised for any of my points raised (except one minor point) so I think all of the defence was relevant. Guess it depends on each individual and how much effort they're prepared to research into this and present their case. Can't understand why no cases have been won on lack of planning though .. makes their signs illegal surely?
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 2nd Sep 18, 6:13 PM
    • 2,369 Posts
    • 6,829 Thanks
    bargepole
    ... Can't understand why no cases have been won on lack of planning though .. makes their signs illegal surely?
    Originally posted by FlowerMac
    Driving at 40mph in a 30 limit is illegal, but unless you are flashed by a camera, prosecuted and convicted, no crime has been proven to have been committed.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am an associate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 2nd Sep 18, 9:30 PM
    • 192 Posts
    • 148 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    @FlowerMac. In what way was your case weak, and what was your main defence against the weak points?
    I am likely to go up against Excel so I am interested.

    Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.
    • FlowerMac
    • By FlowerMac 14th Sep 18, 11:46 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    FlowerMac
    No .. my case wasn't weak .. theirs was. Ask for a copy of the contract with the landowner. and check with the thread at the top of this forum .. if VCS are bringing the case the same point applies. Depends on your circumstances .. was the signage and lighting adequate. Check through the IPC Code of conduct for any breaches .. you can download a copy of their code of practice off the internet. Good luck
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Sep 18, 8:39 AM
    • 9,989 Posts
    • 9,804 Thanks
    The Deep
    I agre with Bargepole, not everyone has the time, inclination, or ability to fight their case in court personally.

    In my own case, it was a choice between attending court for a £1,000 claim, or go to Spain to wind up a £quarter million property deal.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
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

113Posts Today

1,630Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin