bo54col
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by bo54col
-
Done, thanks for the heads up. Will do, when I'm home next week
-
DISCONTINUED After submitting the WS, Excel Parking Services have discontinued their action. There was a deliberate intention to keep things from the Forum, as i know they have spies on here having read previous transcripts from court in other reported cases, but I'll update you now for the benefit of others The defence was broadly as posted above - Breach of POFA, in using a piece of cardboard as a purported Notice to Driver, and then relying on that to obtain Keeper details before POFA allows, bringing forward the Keeper Liability as a bully boy tactic to enforce payment. Unfortunately for them, I'm only Fat, not stupid, and won't be bullied. They also breached sub sections of POFA in that the NTD has to detail where when why and how to appeal, none of which was on the card left on the car. ANPR isn't used on the car Park, so all of the above has to be left for the driver before the car is moved, and it wasn't. Secondly, Excel brought the action, yet the 'contract' on the signage was in the name of VCS. What a schoolgirl error by the paralegal, Ms Chambers. Add that to the lack of planning permissions for the signage and electronic parking machines and the tenancity to see it to court obviously made them change their mind. A shame really. The keeper was ready to attend court. Thanks for wasting my time Excel, should the keeper be in this situation again, I look forward to wasting yours. Thanks to all the contributers on here. Happy to help anyone going forward if I can.
-
Love it, EB, thanks alot for the 'finessing'. EB, The parking prankster 'recent case', how recent ? The last entries are for 2018 or older.
-
Thank you very much - I've amended both points you refer to using accepted instead of admitted, and I was always respectful of my English teachers at school, sadly a long time ago hence I've forgotten most of it !
-
Please dont worry now. Ive read everything you posted, it was very useful ! Thank you !
-
Here is my first attempt at the witness statement. All suggestions greatly received. It has to go on Friday or Saturday. EXCEL WITNESS STATEMENT PDF.pdf
-
Many Many Thanks ! And congratulations !
-
Oops. Thanks for trying.
-
Well done Themalibukid Im writing a witness statement tonight, any chance of a copy of yours asap ?
-
Noooooo... Im daft, not green looking...
-
Thanks, Eric. Ive taken photos of the signage, checked local Council planning website for permissions - none for signage or machines, sent CPR 31.14 letter - no reply to that, replied to Notice of Proposed Allocation to small claims track by way of 2 line defence. They had until 16/10 to pay the court fee. The deadline for docs to be sent to the claimant and court is 29/10 (14days prior to hearing) Thank you. Will read on.
-
There is now a hearing date. I now need to submit a statement and exhibits in relation to the continuing action, in the next week. Can someone point me in the direction of what is needed ?
-
Submitted as discussed. Now we wait.
-
Thanks EB, Ill give it a whirl, and keep the thread updated.
-
Id rather flatten it now, if you where able to help undermine the POC too, EB?
-
2 line defence 1.It is denied that the defendant parked in Cloisters P&D Formby at the time mentioned in the particulars. The claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 2. No cause for action against the defendant as no contract offered and no keeper liability created. Is this succinct enough ?
-
Apologies. I did save it as PDF, but uploaded the wrong one. DEFENCE 1. It is denied that the Defendant parked in Cloisters P&D Formby at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 1. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified and the registered keeper is not liable. 2. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 The ‘NTD’ does not conform to Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA 2012. This legislation stipulates what mandatory information should be included on an ‘NTD,' such as the day, date, location, vehicle, parking breach, time of the breach, the appeal process etc. 3. As all of this information is not present on the NTD, I consider the NTD to be invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that I, being the registered keeper, cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. 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. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because it is unclear, due to the signage, who the contract is with. Upon entering the site there is no conditions of contract visible on the board highlighting the car park. Other signage, only visible after parking is duplicitous stating a contract is formed Vehicle Control Services Ltd and enforced by vehicle Control Services Ltd. This claim is not brought by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. 6. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre- estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; (c) the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs. 7. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £185 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose. 8. Save as expressly mentioned above, 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.
-
Ive attached the long version of the defence here. Please advise if you think its too much and needs to be shortened. Ive also attached 2 pictures of the Signage as you enter - showing no contract details, and the other sign where the contract wording is confusing. Entry signage.pdf Signage after parking.pdf
-
HB Im just going to keep it simple and the 3 or 3 line general defence found in the posts, as suggested by dx100uk Havent compiled it yet. I am right in thinking the defence goes to the court only, not to Excel who filed the claim ?
-
Going thru the old letters, this has been assigned to ZENITH Collections as of 1/06/2017. Doe that make a difference ?
-
Thanks, where will I find the 2 or 3 line standard defence ? Is it the one as per the sticky in post 28 above ?
-
I have checked the Sefton Council planning website and no planning applications have been made for any signage or electronic devices for the Cloisters Car Park.
-
Name of the Claimant EXCEL PARKING SERVICES claimants Solicitors: Simon Renshaw Smith Date of issue – 13 May 2019 Date of issue XX + 19 days ( 5 day for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 1 June + 14 days to submit defence = 15/ June 2019 What is the claim for – The Claimants claim is for the sum of £160 due from the Defendant to the claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on 06/01/2017 17:25:00 at Cloisters P&D Car Park - Formby (Formby) The CN relates to a VW Golf under registration P******. The terms of the CN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment. What is the value of the claim? £160 plus £25 costs 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 ? Private Parking Company, Excel Parking Services Ltd Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not Applicable
-
Thanks You. Im back online now. Ack of Service sent back. CPR letter sent to Excel. Signage photos, Sanitised POC, and sketch to follow.
-
To resurrect this old thread, Excel have finally decide to test this case in the claims court. Today an N1 claim form has been received.Can I trouble you for some guidance on what to frame the defence around, the NTD not fitting PoFA 2012, or taking the NTD as valid Excel applying for the DVLA to early (within 28 days) or a mixture of those and signage not having planning permission, and or no ANPR therefore the the invitation to accept the contract was declined and the driver left after making that decisions.Guidance would be appreciated
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS