Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About _Ray_

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for the help, I'll post back if/when I hear anything else from them...
  2. Here's the NTK without obscuring the images. If you were trying to see if a ticket was attached to the windscreen you can't tell from the images on the NTK but you can from some of the other images they've posted online so I've attached them as well. You can see from the first image there is nothing, then 1 minute and 1 second later there's a ticket on the windscreen... ntk+pix.pdf
  3. Well I went ahead and submitted the defence as time was running short. As I said above I was trying to find a POFA violation seeing as this is the stick they are trying to beat me with, and I think I've found one but only AFTER submitting the defence - ooops! The driver informed me today that a windscreen ticket was placed on the car windscreen, but this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Anyway, the event happened 18/04/19 and the NTK was issued 24/04/19 - 6 days later! Schedule 4 says it should be issued "28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given" which makes it non-compliant - yay. However, as I didn't mention this in my defence as I only found out after it was submitted, will I still be able to use it as part of my defence if it goes to court? Thanks
  4. You're right, I have a tendency to over think things and was trying to find a POFA infraction to add to the defence given that it's POFA they are using to try to create liability. Here's where I'm at so far... 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of motor vehicle XXXX XXX. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in MediaCityUK Surface car park at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. I submit that at the time of the alleged contravention, Excel Parking Services Limited did not have planning permission from Salford City Council, under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, for their signage at the MediaCityUK Surface car park which is a criminal offence and that the driver can't enter into a criminal contract therefore no contract to breach. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by, and the terms of entry set by, the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
  5. Still trying to identify where Excel's NTK might be non-compliant and hopefully this might be it... In POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4 subsection (5) it says: The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). Excel increased the charge from £100 to £160 but on the NTK it says that this extra amount is for Debt Collection. Can they legitimately add an additional £60 to the invoice by saying it's for debt collection? Thanks
  6. I know I keep making errors with this but can I ask one question - Does the original NTK need to mention the phrase POFA? If the answer is NO, then I realise this might seem like a pointless question, but I've read and reread schedule 4 of POFA and I can't see that any of the mandatory information is missing from the NTK. If it does need to mention POFA however (the NTK doesn't mention it btw), it gives me something to cling to...
  7. Sorry about that, wasn't aware of the situation. I asked further up the thread if it is OK to paste my intended defence and was told "What does everyone else do?" which I took to mean I should. Maybe I misunderstood...
  8. Been away since my last post so now I'm back it's time to get this sorted... I've been given a template defence courtesy of Andyorch and have a couple of questions about it if that's OK? This is what I have... So my questions are... 1. Can they ONLY establish Keeper Liability IF they mention POFA on the original Notice to Keeper? If so, what do I put in section 3 of the defence? If not, what do I put in section 3 of the defence? 2. In section 5 of the defence (signage), any suggestions as to wording for why a charge is not incorporated into the contract? I know Ericsbrother said not to get hung up on the signage issue at this stage, but it seems to me this should be included. I can delete that bit if that's the consensus here. As always, apologies if some of these points are a bit newbish, this is not stuff I'm familiar with but eager to take them on if that's what they decide. Cheers
  9. OK that's fine... Is it OK to post the defence on here once I've prepared it (hopefully next week) for you all to look through or is that not recommended? Ray
  10. Thanks for all the help and information so far... I have filed my AoS via the moneyclaim website, and have drafted my CPR 31.14 request letter using the template dx100uk pointed me to - will post it this afternoon. I assume it will need signing for? When it comes to filing my defence, is it worth filing a counter-claim at the same time or is that too much hassle? I would like to counter in order to encourage them to drop their claim beforehand rather than them just not turning up on the day and therefore wasting everybody's time. If it's not advised though, I will listen to them that know best Ray
  11. Name of the Claimant ? - Excel Parking Services Ltd claimants Solicitors: - No mention of any lawyers name/s. The court document is signed by Simon Renshaw-Smith (Claimant) so maybe he is representing himself nowadays Date of issue - 02.09.19 What is the claim for - 1.The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2.The Defendant's vehicle, XXXX XXX, was identified in the MediaCityUK Surface Car Park on 18/04/2019 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked after the expiry of the time purchased. 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4.The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was an offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 5.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 6.The claimant seeks recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. What is the value of the claim? - £185.00 Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim? - Issued by the PPC Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - N/A ADDITIONAL INFO... 1. There is no mention of POFA on the original PCN but I'm not sure if it needs to mention POFA in order to use it to establish keeper liability. They did add £60 to the original total which I believe is not allowed under POFA. 2. I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I don't drive due to a medical condition. 3. I've scoured the Salford Council planning portal and can find no mention of any planning permission for signage at the site. 4. In an earlier post in this thread, EricsBrother outlined why the signage is wrong although I can't claim to fully understand what the issues are. Ray
  12. COURT FORMS RECEIVED FROM SIMPLE SIMON Quick Recap... I received a Notice to Keeper from Excel Parking for overstaying in a car park in Media City, Manchester in April this year. I ignored all their letters until they sent me a Letter Before Claim in July. At that stage I sent them the snotty reply but they have now issued court papers for said event. I wasn't driving the car as I don't drive due to a brain condition that affects my eyesight but they are obviously assuming, or hoping to convince the court, that I was the driver. Back to Today - a couple of questions if that's OK... 1. What do I need to do to fight this - I assume there is quite a strict time limit? I am more than happy to take them on in court and read on another thread about submitting a counter claim for breach of GDPR. I told them I would do this in my snotty letter so it would be rude not to - is this something you would recommend or should I let that aspect drop? 2. As mentioned above I have a brain condition and while it doesn't affect my thinking in any way, it can affect my memory and thought process sometimes - would the court make allowances for this? BTW... There is no mention of POFA on their original invoice and I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that for keeper liability to apply, any NTK had to be POFA compliant. Many thanks
  13. I've sent the letter and will update here when I hear anything or, hopefully, don't hear anything
  14. Ha, didn't realise that snotty was the essence of what we were meant to do, but point taken - dealing with these companies is confusing sometimes for a newb like me... Is this any better (stolen, and slightly amended, from one of EB's posts)? Dearest Excel Parking, Re: Speculative Invoice Number xxxxxxxx Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxxx Site: Media City, Salford Event Date: xx/xx/2019 I have received your letter of the 17th threatening legal proceedings, however you know damned well that you have no cause for action. I'm sure though that your recorded and ridiculed belief that you know better than judges do will no doubt cloud your judgement on this matter and you will more than likely start a civil claim against me anyway. That is fine by me, I look forward to a day out at your expense and am minded to counterclaim for breach of the GDPR just to ensure you don't drop the claim when it becomes obvious that I am not going to wet myself and pay up. I will remind you that VCS v Phillip is the persuasive case for quantum of damages and Vidal Hall and others v Google for the case law to allow me to bite you back in the first place. I look forward to common sense overriding your avarice and that this is now the last that will ever need to be said on the matter. Regards
  15. Looks like he might be all out of snotty replies I've read scores of threads on the forum but can't find anything specifically relating to Excel Parking at Media City, so have 'borrowed' snippets from a few different threads on here. So how about something like this... Dear Excel Parking, Re: Invoice Number xxxxxxxx (Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxxx) Site: Media City, Salford Contravention Date: xx/xx/2019 As the keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for any breach of contract you may claim against the driver at the time as I don't drive and you have failed to create a keeper liability under the POFA 2012. Should you decide to take this matter further, I will expect you to provide STRICT PROOF as to who the driver was at the time and also explain the lawful reason why the sum of £60 has been added to the contractual charge when, as we both know, the POFA expressly forbids it and there is no allowance in contract law for such a demand. Additionally, I do not believe you have the legal permission to erect signs on this land, and again will expect you to provide proof that you have. Regards I should probably add something about their confusing signage as well, but not sure what it should say. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ray
  • Create New...