Please help Excel parking

[Barsteward]

Do not pay.

It is merely puff and bluster.

Where does it say they WILL instigate proceedings? it doesn't.

[snico4]

Should I write a letter to CCS, if so what exactly should I say regarding the debt and the date of the letter?

[lamma]

don't waste the stamp, they won't listen they just want to con you out of your money. Don't forget this is a mail based [problem] so sending letters is just playing into their hands and along with the [problem]. Excel getting more and more desparate for cash it seems. hope it wasn't anything to do with us Ignore them while reading this Judge quashes £300 parking fine...because it set out to ‘frighten and intimidate’ driver | Mail Online

[Spunkymonkey]

Snico, as others have said, don't contact them at all. Their letters are designed to threaten you and make you feel that you have to pay but look closely at what they're saying:

 

1) In the "red" letters back in October, they said that if you didn't pay their next step would be to issue court proceedings. You didn't pay. So, if they were serious, they would have issued court proceedings (they told you they would!)

 

Instead of taking you to court, they sat around for 3 months doing nothing, then asked their friends at CCS to have a go at scaring you 'cos they weren't succeeding themselves.

 

2) CCS have now written warning youu that:

 

our client may authorise us to prepare documents for the issue of County Court proceedings against you.

 

Think about that sentence. Their clients (Excel) still haven't "given authority" to commence court action - they're just saying they "may do" in future. Only, they're not even saying that they may start court action - only that they may "prepare documents for the issue of...". They can prepare as many documents as they like and still not actually take you to court.

 

All of these letters are carefully written to give the impression that you'll end up with Bailiffs at the door without actually saying so. That's because, if they actually said so, they would be committing fraud by threatening you with something that they know won't happen in order to get money out of you.

 

If you feel you must answer them (but, really, don't!) then the only thing you should say is that:

 

You consider their letters to be harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Section 1 and that any future letters will not be answered but will be retained as evidence of an offence by them under Section 2 of that Act.

 

 

That, effectively, does the same as their letters to you. You're not actually saying that you'll make a harassment complaint, only that you'll "keep their letters as evidence". The difference between that and their letters is that there's actually law to back yours up if needed

[snico4]

Hi, i have received a letter today from a firm called 'Charles Howard & partners'

 

This letter follows a recent letter from CCS Collect. I replied to CCS Collect stating that the debt was in dispute with Excel and they have now issued this letter on me.

 

The address ofthis company is the same as CCS Collect so its obviously the same company.

 

The letter states that I have 72 HOUR NOTICE OF HOME VISIT

They say, despite our previous correspondence ( I have not been in contact with these at all) we our now making arrangements for one of our collectors to visit you at home

 

The purpose of this visit is to secure payment from you and investigate your home situation prior to court action.

 

You can avoid our collector visiting you by

 

MAKING PAYMENT TO THIS OFFICE BY RETURN OF POST

TELEPHONING THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY

 

It is in your own interests to deal with this now. Your account will not be overloooked or forgotten and we intend to resolve this matter to our clients satisfaction.

 

 

Now I am not too happy about recieving this letteras I have tried to contact Excel at the first instance of this matter. I also written a letter to CCS Collect stating the debt was in dispute etc.

 

My missus is worried sick about this, with the mentioning of court action and a 'home visit'

 

Would it be wise to write a letter to Charles Howard & Partners explaining the debt to them. If so, what I should I mention in the letter?

[Spunkymonkey]

Write a very simple letter to them saying that you do not consent to any of their representatives coming to your home. Nothing other than that.

 

That way there can be no question of whether they're entitled to come under an "implied licence" because you've specifically revoked any implied licence they might have.

 

If they do turn up at your home then it's very simple: they're committing trespass.

 

If you open the door at all, simply tell them to leave and if they don't leave immediately then call the police, tell them there's someone at your door who's frightening you and your wife, and have them removed.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Spunkymonkey
Edited to remove reference to missing post :-)

[snico4]

These are not idle threats, and if you don't pay, you WILL end up in court. You have been warned.

 

If you read the original post, It stated that I was unloading, the sign that Excel have up says no parking unless unloading. I think I might take them to court myself!

[MARTIN3030]

These are not idle threats, and if you don't pay, you WILL end up in court. You have been warned.

 

 

Your posts are rather repetitive.

Site team are watching.

[jasmin2008]

He is already banned from another site that can't be mentioned.

[snico4]

I dont really want to ignore this, it might look better if its possible to see I made an effort like I have previously.

 

I am thinking of writing to my local council who I assume have the contract with Excel, maybe they will do something.

 

What ever I do, it must be done within 72 hours!

[Michael Browne]

I am thinking of writing to my local council who I assume have the contract with Excel, maybe they will do something.

Why do you assume that? I very much doubt this will have anything at all to do with your local council. You'll be wasting time and effort writing to them.

 

The only reason they are continuing to chase you is because you have entered into correspondence with Excel and they think they can intimidate you into paying. If they really thought they had a cast iron case they would have issued a court claim, yet 10 months down the line they're still just sending useless threats

[Spunkymonkey]

Why do you assume that? I very much doubt this will have anything at all to do with your local council. You'll be wasting time and effort writing to them.

 

The only reason they are continuing to chase you is because you have entered into correspondence with Excel and they think they can intimidate you into paying. If they really thought they had a cast iron case they would have issued a court claim, yet 10 months down the line they're still just sending useless threats

 

 

That is absolutely true, Michael.

 

Unfortunately, most decent law-abiding people (which snico certainly appears to be) naturally tend to trust that "the system" will be fair and will listen to reason.

 

They're right to a point - if something like this ever got as far as court, the court would be fair and listen to reason.

 

The bit that it's very hard for most people to take on face value, or on the word of someone posting on t'internet, is that these companies know that they're likely to fail in court yet write threats as if they're on a clear legal winner.

 

snico, as Michael has pointed out - and I did earlier - they said their next step would be court proceedings all the way back in October.

 

Now they're saying that they'll be arranging a "home visit" - where exactly are these legal proceedings they're so confident of winning?

 

Do not for one second imagine that they're delaying court in order to give you a "fair chance" - if they were interested in fairness, they would have accepted your original appeal. They are delaying (in fact, completely avoiding) court because they know they won't win.

 

It's intimidation, pure and simple, which they do because they know they can intimidate most people into paying, whether it's fair or not. Think of them as a school bully "collecting" people's lunch money.......

[Michael Browne]

Here's what happened when Excel went to court:

Judge says Excel parking fines illegal - Mansfield Chad

[snico4]

Thanks for the replies, I am going to write a letter to Charles Howard & Partners and include the relevant information etc.

 

Why do you assume that? I very much doubt this will have anything at all to do with your local council. You'll be wasting time and effort writing to them

 

I asume this because the area in question only became an Excel restricted area just before I received my ticket and the area is not private land as far as I know

[lamma]

I dont really want to ignore this, it might look better if its possible to see I made an effort like I have previously.

 

I am thinking of writing to my local council who I assume have the contract with Excel, maybe they will do something.

 

What ever I do, it must be done within 72 hours!

 

You are way off target here. this is a PPC ticket not a council one (see the stickies and the many PPC threads).

 

the 72 hour deadline is complete and utter rubbish - designed to scare you.

They have no powers at all and will not waste time and money visiting people who can and will (if they have read up on here) rightly tell them where to get off. You will see other recent posts here about this visit threat - you will also see that it is classed as a threat.

You can ignore them with impugnity.

[RichardW]

I was in a similar situation to you.. and still am. I'm awating their next move.

 

If they are want to send "people" around, then it can only be under a court order.

 

This will be a last resort. If if went to court and you lost then then you would be asked to pay up first and you will have the oportunity to defend yourself.

 

Remeber:-

 

1. You are innocent until proven guilty. Do they have any valid evidence?

 

2. They wont take you to court as they know they won't win so don't worry about it. That's why they are using these dirty tactics. The only thing you have to repond to is the court, if it goes that far.

 

3. They can also only claim for the lost revenue. The PPC is a penality charge. Think... recent court cases with the banks??

 

Read my thread and look at the attacments. It will be all too similar.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/174378-excel-parking-pcns.html

 

These guys are great on here, and I have learnt very quickly! ;-)

 

They will put up...or shut up eventually. Store the letters up just incase, as you never know if you might need them the future. You can prove they harrrased you and you wife?

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2009 by RichardW
typos

[cocis]

Snico4, I have read your thread with great interest and it has encouraged me to join this forum as I am desperate to know the outcome of your plight for two reasons:

 

a) because you sound like a law abiding citizen who I feel needs to be protected against such corporate bullies. I believe it is aparent to all who read this thread that you deserve protection and you have encouraged the fatherly instinct within me to make a rare post.

 

b) because I am now involved in a similar action with Excel Parking in defence of my daughter who is currently studying at the Uiversity of Cumbria.

 

As we share the same plight, I thought I would share with you my experience of this organisation.(although a little less mature than your own case)

 

THE CRIME

Letter from Excel parking arrives at my house informaing me of a £100 fine after failing to appeal (within 7 days) against the Parking Charge Notice issued to my daughter in January. The charge is related to failure of payment and headed "Parked on campus with no permit in window after 30 minutes for loading and unloading".

 

As a concerned parent I instantly confront my daughter with regard to her irresponsibilitiy. After an initial impulse of anger towards her (yes she should have told me about it), this was follwed by a fair and rationale explanation. She had breached the contract, but the renumeration to Excel parking appeared excessive.

I therefore began to turn my anger on the economic commercial reasoning that had dictated this circumstance.

 

Note:

I am a law abiding citizen, I do note condone breaking legitimate/fair rules,

I have an ingrained sense of fairness, I can easily afford the £100 fine,

but..... this really rubs against my own personal sense of fairness.

 

She is a student, and as is the case with all modern students, she will have significant financial difficulties to overcome. Add on top of this the fatherly instinct to protect, and you are now in the same mental

zone.

 

I therefore began to research information in order to better understand the situation and to offer protection. (In short I have now taken over responsibility to solve this issue).

 

Fact: The annual parking fee for the her univerity campus is a mere £25 per year. (Needless to say I have asked my daughter to procure a ticket forthwith)

 

My initial internet stop lead me to the following excellent post

 

FAQs - Private Parking Companies/Charges (everything you need to know)

 

The above is an excellent article that can certainly be used to provide a response in your own case with respect to harassment.

 

As a result of reading this article I wrote eto Excel. (this was, on reflection perhaps a mistake)

 

They responded blandly to the points raised anf the wording of the response implied no change in position on their part,

 

I therefore began a broader trawl of the internat and came across multiple articles which have all been filed in preparation for any court action.

 

 

After much research however my conclsion is this:

 

1) Excel have alegal authority comparable to your next door neighbour. View them as the neighbour complaining about your fence height. Do not be fooled into their corporate bully boy tactics into either paying or disclosing any information.

 

2) The charge of £100 falls foul of much legislation (See above URL), and as such they know it is unenforceable.

 

3) It appears to their credit they are persistant in their bluff tactics in an attempt to instigate a need for payment from law abiding citizens.

 

4) Any parking issue will ultimately be subject to a small claims procedure where mediation is offerred and legal costs of the third party are not incurred.

 

5) Even if you lost the case(unlikely), you simply pay them the £100 and that is the end of the matter.

 

Therefore as you have been correctly advised to date my advice is to ignore all further correspondence unless it is a summons from the county court.

 

The threat of a direct visit to your house is certainly illegal with respect to the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

following legislation:

 

 

My strategy from this point forward is therfore:

 

a) Ignore all future correspondence unless issued directly from the courts.

b) Ensure I publicise the rogue practices of thsi organisation and their operational practices wherever possible.

 

 

All the best

 

 

Cocis

 

Apologies for any typos but it is late Friday night and the wine is flowing in abundance.

 

Here is a few more links for you to review:

More dodgy parking practices from Excel Parking Services Ltd — The Roadside Lawyer

 

Refund him Excel! - The Star

 

BBC NEWS | UK | Drivers' anger at parking charges

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/137632-please-help-excel-parking-3.html

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=56

Judge says Excel parking fines illegal - Mansfield Chad

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine--set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html

Edited April 4, 2009 by cocis

[havinastella]

Snico4, I have read your thread with great interest and it has encouraged me to join this forum as I am desperate to know the outcome of your plight for two reasons:

 

a) because you sound like a law abiding citizen who I feel needs to be protected against such corporate bullies. I believe it is aparent to all who read this thread that you deserve protection and you have encouraged the fatherly instinct within me to make a rare post.

 

b) because I am now involved in a similar action with Excel Parking in defence of my daughter who is currently studying at the Uiversity of Cumbria.

 

As we share the same plight, I thought I would share with you my experience of this organisation.(although a little less mature than your own case)

 

THE CRIME

Letter from Excel parking arrives at my house informaing me of a £100 fine after failing to appeal (within 7 days) against the Parking Charge Notice issued to my daughter in January. The charge is related to failure of payment and headed "Parked on campus with no permit in window after 30 minutes for loading and unloading".

 

As a concerned parent I instantly confront my daughter with regard to her irresponsibilitiy. After an initial impulse of anger towards her (yes she should have told me about it), this was follwed by a fair and rationale explanation. She had breached the contract, but the renumeration to Excel parking appeared excessive.

I therefore began to turn my anger on the economic commercial reasoning that had dictated this circumstance.

 

Note:

I am a law abiding citizen, I do note condone breaking legitimate/fair rules,

I have an ingrained sense of fairness, I can easily afford the £100 fine,

but..... this really rubs against my own personal sense of fairness.

 

She is a student, and as is the case with all modern students, she will have significant financial difficulties to overcome. Add on top of this the fatherly instinct to protect, and you are now in the same mental

zone.

 

I therefore began to research information in order to better understand the situation and to offer protection. (In short I have now taken over responsibility to solve this issue).

 

Fact: The annual parking fee for the her univerity campus is a mere £25 per year. (Needless to say I have asked my daughter to procure a ticket forthwith)

 

My initial internet stop lead me to the following excellent post

 

FAQs - Private Parking Companies/Charges (everything you need to know)

 

The above is an excellent article that can certainly be used to provide a response in your own case with respect to harassment.

 

As a result of reading this article I wrote eto Excel. (this was, on reflection perhaps a mistake)

 

They responded blandly to the points raised anf the wording of the response implied no change in position on their part,

 

I therefore began a broader trawl of the internat and came across multiple articles which have all been filed in preparation for any court action.

 

 

After much research however my conclsion is this:

 

1) Excel have alegal authority comparable to your next door neighbour. View them as the neighbour complaining about your fence height. Do not be fooled into their corporate bully boy tactics into either paying or disclosing any information.

 

2) The charge of £100 falls foul of much legislation (See above URL), and as such they know it is unenforceable.

 

3) It appears to their credit they are persistant in their bluff tactics in an attempt to instigate a need for payment from law abiding citizens.

 

4) Any parking issue will ultimately be subject to a small claims procedure where mediation is offerred and legal costs of the third party are not incurred.

 

5) Even if you lost the case(unlikely), you simply pay them the £100 and that is the end of the matter.

 

Therefore as you have been correctly advised to date my advice is to ignore all further correspondence unless it is a summons from the county court.

 

The threat of a direct visit to your house is certainly illegal with respect to the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

© falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;

(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

Paragraph (a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise legal) for the purpose of :

(1) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(2) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

It is also provided that a person may be guilty of an offence under paragraph (a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

following legislation:

 

 

My strategy from this point forward is therfore:

 

a) Ignore all future correspondence unless issued directly from the courts.

b) Ensure I publicise the rogue practices of thsi organisation and their operational practices wherever possible.

 

 

All the best

 

 

Cocis

 

Apologies for any typos but it is late Friday night and the wine is flowing in abundance.

 

Here is a few more links for you to review:

More dodgy parking practices from Excel Parking Services Ltd — The Roadside Lawyer

 

Refund him Excel! - The Star

 

BBC NEWS | UK | Drivers' anger at parking charges

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/137632-please-help-excel-parking-3.html

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=56

 

Judge says Excel parking fines illegal - Mansfield Chad

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine--set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html

 

Apologies to OP!

 

Jogs

Edited April 5, 2009 by havinastella

[electron99]

WHY ALL THE INFO!

 

Can you not read!

 

IGNORE!

 

SIMPLE, FOR CHRIST SAKE, IGNORE, Shall I spell it.

 

I G N O R E.

 

You said you had read the threads, where did you get off?

 

 

Ignore, shall I say it again?

 

Nah

 

 

I am appalled at this juvenile reaction to someone who not only is a first time poster, but has taken the time and trouble to give a literate and articulate contribution to this thread.

 

I suggest you stay away until you can learn to moderate your lanquage, study the correct use of capital letters, and can contribute something more worthwhile than making a new member feel unwelcome.

[crem]

As electron99 points out, it would appear havinastella has had one too many stellas when he did that post! It is clearly rude and uncalled for.

 

I hope cocis has read enough of the threads in CAG to appreciate that manners are usually better from CAG members.

[lamma]

Cocis, excellent start. Excel paperwork is always unlawful and sometime illegal. see http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face and FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned and read this The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 No.

[cocis]

Thanks for the additional links lamma there is certainly some key information in there.

 

I will need to re-read to ensure I have digested the information correctly, and then intepret in view of my own case.

 

I am contemplating following the suggested course of action by writing to

- The DVLA

- The BPA

- The University Estates Department.

 

I guess if we dont register our frustrations with the current practices then we cannot expect improvement. Ignoring the issue is not going to bring about change.

[lamma]

exactly. then read those COnsumer regs and write to Trading Standards, include copies of the PPC paperwork and tell TS that the the PPC is in breach. remind TS there remit includes these regs. (but politely as in " as your remit includes the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulation 2008 I am submitting this as a formal complaint of the actions of 'name of the PPC' being in breach of these regulations and enclose copies of examples of these breaches").

[cocis]

 

I am struggling to understand the wording of this paragraph

This 'Charge' is in fact an invoice from a private company and is not

a [“Fixed Penalty Charge”/”Penalty Charge Notice/”Parking Charge Notice”].

 

Does it realy make sense to say "The "Charge" is in fact an invoice from a private company and is not a Parking Charge Notice. When it clearly is a Parking charge Notice. Im a little confused with this small part of the template letter.

Shall i just take this para out?

 

Not sure about the validity of this paragraph also

Please note neither of these documents contains the actual address of Excel Parking which I am advised is in breach of "The Companies (Registrar, Languages and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006 No.3429)" as this legislation appears to relate to trading disclosures and doesnt seem to make any explicit reference to the mandatory provision of address details? What is the actual address of Excel Parking?

 

 

Should I be opening a new thread as I do not wish to hijack snicos thread?

Can the moderator split this thread?

Edited April 4, 2009 by cocis

[lamma]

I think you have to modify the words on the complaint letters to suit the contents of the PPC paperwork as indicated by the slashes.