Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cagedbird

  1. The data was obtained pre-GDPR. The PCN was issued on the 14th May 2018, with GDPR becoming effective on the 25th May 2018. Unless it can be applied retrospectively, I feel this is a moot point. Just found an interesting article : https://www.vsec.infinigate.co.uk/blog/according-to-the-gdpr-it-is-in-force-already :
  2. I hope you all had a good Christmas and New Year! Thanks to all for your input. Here's my proposed response: With reference to your letter of December 2019, reference as above, its contents are acknowledged. The matter has been passed to yourselves after BW Legal’s failed attempts to bully me into submission; using lies, mistruths and threats of legal proceedings. Perhaps they saw the error of their ways - perhaps not! As before, I’ll keep this simple so as to avoid confusion. The Particulars of Debt in your letter are unsubstantiated. We parked, I paid. As your client insists on taking Court action, then please advise them that I will make a request to the Court for full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (CPR Part 27.14(2)(g)).
  3. Well, here we are a year and three days on. The sleepy little highwayman decides to wake up. Today I received the Letter Before Claim (attached). Are ELMS Legal new to the scene, or one of the other cronies under a new guise? Many Thanks. LetterBeforeClaim.pdf
  4. I found it a bit strange when reading it. They repeated, almost verbatim, some of the contents of the responses from Excel. They probably share the same documents to cut and paste from. I'm going to have a good Christmas and New Year and look forward to their next feeble attempts at bullying. All the best, and look forward to the next thrilling instalment.
  5. Hi all, Response received from BW today. Copy attached. What a surprise that they are going to continue to pursue the matter. It seems that they spout their rubbish so often that they believe it themselves. They haven't asked for a response, so I'm not inclined to do so - unless there's a compelling reason that anyone can suggest. Happy reading. BWLegal 2018-12-13.pdf
  6. Should I include a copy of the proof, or make them either ask for it or get it from Excel?
  7. Hi, Thanks for the response. Here's a response I've quickly thrown together: Any thoughts?
  8. Hi, I'm back. Received a "Letter of Claim" this morning - scan attached. I take it that I complete the appropriate sections of the Reply Form and provide a copy of the RingGo receipt. Cheers. Thanks. Letter_Claim_01 .pdf
  9. I've pointed that out to them as well. It was also mentioned (and ignored) in the IAS - Kangaroo Court - appeal. Do I point this out to BWL, or ignore everything until the Court paperwork arrives? I'm in favour of the latter - ignore.
  10. Hi EB, I entered the carpark just after 9am, managed to pay, via Ringo, at about 10:20am and left the carpark just after 6pm. I have pointed out to Excel that at the time of the alleged breach a valid, paid for session was in progress [they've seen the evidence], but the thing they keep on pushing is the 1 hour 18 minutes that the car was parked without a 'valid pay & display' ticket. They appear to be fixated on the '10 Minutes' grace period and the £60/£100 penalty for exceeding it. It's derogatory to Muppets, but it's what we're dealing with - absolute, total Muppets.
  11. Date of the infringement - 2nd May 2018 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 14th May 2018 Date received - 17th May 2018 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? - Not that I can see Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Yes Have you appealed? [y/n?] post up your appeal - Yes Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - Yes Who is the parking company? Excel Parking Services Limited Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Providence Street, Wakefield. For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under? - IAS docs1.pdf
  12. Here's a brief run down of history of my situation. I regularly parked in the Providence Street, Wakefield carpark, operated by Excel, and generally used the Ringo App to pay for parking. My usual habit was to park the car and then whilst walking to the office, use the app on my phone to make the payment. On the 2nd May this year I was unable to make payment, errors connecting etc. Each attempt to pay resulted in failure. On arriving at the office I tried to log into my account using the desktop PC, again there were difficulties with logging into the site. I eventually suceeded in making the payment. By this time 1 hour 18 minutes had passed between entering the carpark and making the payment. I thought nothing more of it until the notice from Excel, for not displaying a valid pay and display ticket. I responded via email pointing out that a ticket had been purchased. Their response was that sufficient time (10 minutes) was allowed for purchasing a ticket and that 'payment for parking had not been correctly made'. An appeal was made through IAS, which was, without any surprise, found in favour of Excel. The matter has been placed in the hands of BW Legal who are pursuing the matter. I have had two letters from them, both have gone unaswered. The first stating they are acting for Excel. The second pointing out that I hadn't responded to their first letter and advising of the possibility of County Court Proceedings. The initial claim from Excel was, and appears to still be the case despite providing a copy of the receipt, that I stayed for 528 minutes without payment. They don't appear to be bright enough to switch their claim to being that the 10 minute grace period was exceeded and not that a ticket wasn't purchased. This leads to my request for advice / information. I have attached a PDF showing Excel's handing over of the issue to BW, and BW's confirmation of the instruction. I've also included a photo of the sign at the entrance to the carpark and outlined in red the statements that assistance is requested. 1) Does the PCN £100 section bear any weight? As I didn't make a payment until 1 hour 18 minutes after parking, was any contract entered into? If not is it possible to "breach the T&Cs"? Would it stand up in court? 2) The T&Cs for the site are situated at the ticket machines, some 30+ yards away from this sign. What weight and how enforceable is the section marked "!"? As pointed out in the appeal through IAS, Excel haven't lost any revenue. I paid £5.00 (12 hours) for parking and stayed 528 minutes (entry to exit times). The payment was late but had I managed to pay at the time of entering I would have paid £5.00 and stayed the exact same amount of time. My view and from what I've read in other postings, the best that can be held against me is that of trespass for the 1 hour 18 minutes between entering the carpark and purchasing the ticket. And, if this is the case, then it's not Excel that has the power to pursue this course of action. It is the land-owner that has to take it and that claim would be restricted to the amount of the loss of revenue / damage caused. In this case the grand sum of £0. My tack is to continue to ignore the communications from Excel and BW Legal and defend any County Court proceedings that they see fit to pursue. Any / all thoughts, advice and pointers will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading. Excel.pdf
  13. Hi, I'm in a similar situation (a few days earlier in the process) to this and am following the thread to see what to expect. I received a CCA request letter saying that they have requested the doc from the CO and will try to respond within the 12 working days. To your issue: If they signed for the request on the 30th August, then surely by the 19th September more than 12 working days have passed. On the line "we will ask", are they saying ask because they know they are unable to force you to pay?
  • Create New...