Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DragonFly1967 last won the day on March 5 2018

DragonFly1967 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,674 Excellent

About DragonFly1967

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As far as civil law goes, I'm fairly sure it's pretty consistent throughout the UK, with a few minor "tweaks" for the Scots I don't think that civil law in the North of Ireland is that much different to the mainland. So yes, they would be operating under UK civil justice laws & rules. What they most certainly don't have is the POFA, so again, it's a shame that you've appealed this and more or less confirmed that you were the driver as there was no way that they could have come after you as the keeper. But, regardless of any of that, you've still most certainly got the benefit of supremacy, so if they want to be silly and waste lots of their own money trying to beat you at court, I'd let them carry on, just for the craic. They're going to lose if they try Go down the supremacy of contract route with POPLOL and as soon as PEA see your appeal, they're likely to fold as they're well aware of what will happen further down the line if they don't.
  2. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?488566-Parking-Eye-Mayflower-terminal-short-stay-car-park-**-PE-Folded-at-POPLA-**
  3. They didn't want to contest it because they realised that you were better informed than they'd hoped. Well done I'll update your thread title.
  4. I've redacted it for you If you're going back tomorrow, you could end up with a nice collection of these. Although, you'll have to go some to beat me As of 150618.pdf
  5. Well, yes and no. It can be important to 'go through the motions'. Excel (with the aid of their pet solicitors) are serial litigators, even though 99% of the time they don't stand a cat in hells chance of actually winning a defended claim, and certainly not one that's well defended. As for Lots more than Excel will ever admit to They'll claim that they have a miraculous success rate. But 99.9% of those successes will be default judgements. Just have a search of this forum and the Parking Pranksters blog It'll be important for us to see exactly what you've received so that we can pick holes in it. Excel don't tend to use the correct wording on their NtK's that would make a keeper liable in any event. Regardless of what they might've put in their silly rejection letter.
  6. There's a 0.1% chance of a successful appeal with the IAS, read up on other Excel threads and you'll see why. However, that doesn't mean that a) you owe them any money and b) they'll be getting a single penny out of you. As well as the forum sticky in post #2. Can you also scan (or take a picture of) anything that you've received from Excel (redact anything that can identify you, ticket numbers, bar & QR codes) and the exact wording of the appeal that was rejected by Excel.
  7. Good news about the ticket(s) at home then, although you'll need to stay on the case to make sure that they do actually get cancelled.
  8. The surgeon is wrong I'm afraid. They certainly can take you to court (anyone can take anyone to small claims court), but the question remains whether or not they will.
  9. Moved to Bailiffs - Help with Dealing with Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents including HCEO
  10. Give it a couple of days and then check with the court that they've been notified as well. It wouldn't be the first time that these shysters (much like Gladrags) have told the defendant(s) that the claim is discontinued only to never inform the court of the same and then the case is decided on the papers in the defendants absence (while they believe that there is no case) and they get a default judgement. A complete abuse of the system of course, but if they did it and got caught, they'd just claim it as an "administrative error" and get away with it.
  11. I'm still going through this at the moment, but here is a link to the Wiltshire Planning portal and the original planning application. https://unidoc.wiltshire.gov.uk/UniDoc/Document/Search/DSA,737606 On the original plans, 51 car parking spaces were applied for and granted. No time limit was ever asked for and was never imposed as part of the permission! I can't find any application(s) or grant of permission(s) to vary that. And this is without going in to any permissions that they probably haven't got for their signage and ANPR cameras. Game, Set & Match I reckon Best to keep this information under your hat for now, it'd be useful if these clowns ever decided to try and take you (or someone else) to court, but not a great deal of use as far as an appeal to Brittania and/or POPLOL. But at least you now know that their claim for your vehicle overstaying their self imposed 2 hour time limit are completely groundless.
  12. Make sure you point that out to the Judge, especially if your vehicle was not parked on the bit that is leased to Excel Oh, and something else in case it hasn't already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread... Any debt collection costs that they're trying to claim for should be dismissed from the claim. The POFA (make sure you take a copy) does not allow for any additional costs to be passed on to the keeper.
  13. I've redacted that document properly for you No need for measurements, just get some good photos of the signs including their surroundings so that we can see them in context.
  • Create New...