Excel Ticket

[Mossycat]

Mossy I think the easiest point is this.

 

Even if the OP did NOT comply with entering the correct number as per terms and conditions, and even if it can be proven the contract has been entered into, and the terms and conditions read, then they are only entitled to their ACTUAL loss due to this SPECIFIC breach.

 

How much has it cost them due to the OP writing the wrong number? Absolutely bog all.

 

That's the crux of the point.

 

The OP by entering a wrong number HAS cost Excel something

 

1) Time (which in the case of a Company has a monetary value attached to it) spent on dealing with the query from the OP

 

2) Cost of the DVLA enquiry, which was a valid way to tace the owner of the vehicle

 

So by the specific breach Excel can demonstrate a loss, so I don't see why they wouldn't win. They have given the OP chance to pay the admin fee (which I again state I don't think that £10 is unreasonable or excessive, £2.50 of that £10 will be the DVLA search fee, so they are actually asking for £7.50 for postage and admin costs).

 

I learn lots from this forum, so far I haven't heard a valid reason as to why they wouldn't win if they did issue.

 

Mossy

[MrShed]

Afraid not Mossy, because they didnt NEED to do any of that. What you are saying is that the loss has been caused because Excel have MADE it cause them a loss. They did not need to.

[Mossycat]

people are allowed to make errors in this type of thing. A judge would very critical of Excel taking up court time for this in my view. and probably chuck them out. Does CPR say anything about the amount claimed, I would be surprised if it allowed claims for a tenner.

 

My understanding is that Court should be a last resort. Yes people are allowed to make mistakes but if that mistake then incurs a genuine cost to someone they are entitled to recover that cost.

 

I doubt that a judge would take a critical view of a Company who stood up and said 'Yes your honour we accept that Mr X made a mistake and so we waived the penalty cluase but did ask for him to cover the costs incurred by us as a direct result of his genuine mistake, but despite having asked Mr X for this money on several occasions they have refused to pay, accordingly Court was the only option left available'

 

In my opinion the Judge would take a critical view of the OP for refsuing to pay reasonable costs that were a direct result of a genuine mistake.

 

Mossy

 

(PS Excel if you are reading this NO I don't want a job with you, I think the way you operate in the main is despicable but on this one I happen to think you have a valid point)

[MrShed]

(PS Excel if you are reading this NO I don't want a job with you

 

:-D:-D:-D

[Mossycat]

Afraid not Mossy, because they didnt NEED to do any of that. What you are saying is that the loss has been caused because Excel have MADE it cause them a loss. They did not need to.

 

Can you explain why

 

I thought it happened like this

 

OP parks in a car park and enters the wrong reg number

 

The camera detects a car leaving the car park, the registration number of that car is NOT on their system as having paid (because the OP entered it wrongly). Therefore, they trace the owner of the vehicle through the DVLA (which they are entitled to do), using the correct number. The OP responds and says whoops I made a mistake. Excel spend time checking this out and confirm that the incorrect reg number is on their system and offer to waive the penalty clause but ask for admin costs back.

 

On the contrary to your suggestion they DID need to do that to trace the owner, how else would you suggest that they attempt to contact the driver other than by contacting the registered keeper?????????

 

I don't understand your comments that they didn't need to do anything, perhaps you could clarify

 

Mossy

[MrShed]

Actually, at the risk of being villified - I am going to make a complete U turn and agree with Mossy. I misread the original situation - there is clearly an ACTUAL loss to the PPC here.

 

As I understand it, there are usually 2 defences to PPC tickets:

 

- Unfair penalties/not actual financial loss

- Difficulty in proving a contract existed

 

My (new)understanding is that neither defence here would succeed...

 

Personally, I would say that now the only defence would be if the location of the terms and conditions were not located somewhere the OP would have HAD to have seen them during the parking and ticket purchasing process - and this is highly unlikely.

[Mossycat]

Actually, at the risk of being villified - I am going to make a complete U turn and agree with Mossy. I misread the original situation - there is clearly an ACTUAL loss to the PPC here.

 

As I understand it, there are usually 2 defences to PPC tickets:

 

- Unfair penalties/not actual financial loss

- Difficulty in proving a contract existed

 

My (new)understanding is that neither defence here would succeed...

 

Personally, I would say that now the only defence would be if the location of the terms and conditions were not located somewhere the OP would have HAD to have seen them during the parking and ticket purchasing process - and this is highly unlikely.

 

Careful, Excel might offer you a job (I turned them down remember)

 

No seriously though, that's the reason I was posting because I cannot see a defence holding up on this one, I'd love someone to come along and tell me why Excel would lose if it went to Court (Not just because I hate PPC's but because I really do learn a lot from this forum)

 

Mossy

[MrShed]

My question(theoretical) would be - is just displaying the T&Cs enough? Surely you would have to prove that the OP SAW and READ them? Otherwise, how could they possibly have agreed to them?

[Barnsley Boy]

Hey up BarnsleyBoy

 

I usually learn something from you, so I'll ask it direct.

 

If Excel pursue the recovery of this amount through MCOL or County Court it is my understanding that they could add costs and interest (Section 15 of the 1969 County Court Act), so yes they would spend more money initially but if they win they recover that.

 

Or am I mistaken in my understanding

 

Take away the 'if's' and 'chances of' it making it to Court, I'm not for one minute suggesting Excel would go to Court I'm talking more of the semantics based on the facts (Yes I do accept people make genuine mistakes but if a consequence of a genuine mistake is that someone is genuinely put to work that they would otherwise not have had to do then I cannot see why it isn't a reasonable item of claim)

 

Jeez this sounds like I am arguing for and on behalf of a PCC which is a scary thought.

 

Mossy

 

Hi Mossy, we are not going to fall out over this, I know you wear a white hat but you must have got out of bed with a strange emphatuation for excel this morning. I hope it wears off and you can soon make a full recovery.

 

I take issue with one of your comments. Contrary to what you say, most contracts DO NOT contain penalty clauses. Lawyers and other professionals take a lot of time and effort in avoiding penalty clauses precisely because they are unenforceable.

 

What you do have are stated remedies for breech of contract, loss of profit, the parties costs and so on, all accountable after the breach. There are also liquidated damages provisions in some contracts. These have to be based upon genuine pre estimates of loss agreed by the parties to the contract.

 

There is no way that the OP agreed to a £10 admin charge simply for miskeying his reg nr.

 

Also consider Excel's actions

 

1. they try to charge OP £100

 

2. OP produces ticket [miskeyed reg]

 

3. Excel manage at that stage to do their cross referencing [could have done it before to save everyone the trouble] and accept that OP bought a ticket.

 

4. Excel change demand from £100 to £10 but state if £10 not paid then they would go for full £100.

 

5, How the **** would that work then. They did not write on the letter "without prejudice" so the letter would be available as evidence if push came to shove. Having accepted that "true" entitlement was only £10 m'lud judge would be less than impressed with a £100 claim.

 

6. Their only chance would be to go on MCOL for the £10. Do not expect this to happen anytime soon. I wouldn't seeing them winning even this because all of their incurred costs are self inflicted. Punch errors are a fact of life and excel's systems should be able to cope.

[Mossycat]

My question(theoretical) would be - is just displaying the T&Cs enough? Surely you would have to prove that the OP SAW and READ them? Otherwise, how could they possibly have agreed to them?

 

I think that's the only avenue left, but most ticket machines have terms and conditions next to them and usually state by paying the parking fee you have read and agree to the terms, and most tickets also refer you to the terms and conditions.

 

But now I'm wondering if terms and conditions come into it, Excel are not asking for anything under the terms and conditions which the OP may or may not have seen, they are asking for something outwith that, ie the costs they have incurred as a direct result of the OP having entered an incorrect number.

 

I am not sure that they need to show the OP was aware of the terms and conditions if all they want is their admin costs back (but I'm not so convinced on that one and stand to be corrected)

 

Mossy

[MrShed]

There is no way that the OP agreed to a £10 admin charge simply for miskeying his reg nr.

 

BB - I think the point is surely that he didnt have to. His actions constitute a breach of contract, and the PPC are in fact entitled to restitution amounting to the ACTUAL financial loss due to such a breach.

 

your other points may or may not be valid(you clearly know more than me about PPCs ), but on this one I fail to see any defence.

[MrShed]

But now I'm wondering if terms and conditions come into it, Excel are not asking for anything under the terms and conditions which the OP may or may not have seen, they are asking for something outwith that, ie the costs they have incurred as a direct result of the OP having entered an incorrect number.

 

Without the terms though, there is no contractual obligation to ENTER the correct number...

[Mossycat]

Hi Mossy, we are not going to fall out over this, I know you wear a white hat but you must have got out of bed with a strange emphatuation for excel this morning. I hope it wears off and you can soon make a full recovery.

 

I take issue with one of your comments. Contrary to what you say, most contracts DO NOT contain penalty clauses. Lawyers and other professionals take a lot of time and effort in avoiding penalty clauses precisely because they are unenforceable.

 

What you do have are stated remedies for breech of contract, loss of profit, the parties costs and so on, all accountable after the breach. There are also liquidated damages provisions in some contracts. These have to be based upon genuine pre estimates of loss agreed by the parties to the contract.

 

There is no way that the OP agreed to a £10 admin charge simply for miskeying his reg nr.

 

Also consider Excel's actions

 

1. they try to charge OP £100

 

2. OP produces ticket [miskeyed reg]

 

3. Excel manage at that stage to do their cross referencing [could have done it before to save everyone the trouble] and accept that OP bought a ticket.

 

4. Excel change demand from £100 to £10 but state if £10 not paid then they would go for full £100.

 

5, How the **** would that work then. They did not write on the letter "without prejudice" so the letter would be available as evidence if push came to shove. Having accepted that "true" entitlement was only £10 m'lud judge would be less than impressed with a £100 claim.

 

6. Their only chance would be to go on MCOL for the £10. Do not expect this to happen anytime soon. I wouldn't seeing them winning even this because all of their incurred costs are self inflicted. Punch errors are a fact of life and excel's systems should be able to cope.

 

Hey up BarnsleyBoy

 

I wasn't arguing that Excel could ever get the full penalty but I don't see why they can't get admin costs on this one

 

Mossy

[fridgedoor]

My take on this is that unless the OP has entered into a contract whereby he explicitly agreed to pay an admin charge of £10 if he failed to enter his reg correctly, he is liable for nothing. I would imagine that any terms that Excel would try to apply would not include such an explicit term. It is possible that Excel could sue (for the £10 only - not the £100 - they have already conceded that) as the loss they sustain by some breach of contract by the OP. But they would again need to prove that entering the reg correctly was a contractual term. They would also need to prove that they incurred a loss as a result. It would be open to the OP to argue (aside from no contractual obligation to enter cortrect reg) that Excel has contributed to or indeed caused the loss it suffered by its own method of enforcement. The good news for the OP is that Excel will of course not sue for the £10 and cannot succeed if they sue for the £100 as they have admitted they are not entitled to it.

[lamma]

it hasn't cost Excel anything - the people processing the paperwork will not have been hired in specially to deal with this. they would have been paid regardless. so there is no 'loss' for Excel to recoup.

[MrShed]

Yes there is - cost of postage, cost of DVLA search to name but two. Also, wages CAN be taken into account(although they would need to be quantified if challenged).

[lamma]

2.50 and a stamp. the wages argument would be very hard to make for Excel especially as it could bring questions into play about business volumes etc. And this is a standard part of their business processing - not extra effort at all. Doesn't the CEO there pull down over 400k.

[MrShed]

Wages argument is actualyl very easy.

 

"How long did this person spend exlusively on this case?"

"10 minutes"

"How much do they get paid per hour?"

"£6"

 

£1 cost then....

[Tirnanog]

Hi Lamma

Think you have missed an earlier point from me; they wont be pursuing the tenner, they have threatened that if I dont give them a tenner they will pursue the original PCN despite knowing now that I have the pay/display ticket in my possession and of course because I never received the PCN that they SAY they posted I lost all ight of appeal and they will be going for the £100. It is all too ludicrous for words

[lamma]

okay, thanks. exploring the possible arguments can't hurt (I hope)

[Tirnanog]

HI lamma

Absolutely not althogh it is tendng to get very confusing/conflicting. By the way what is an OP that people keep referring to?

[MrShed]

Original Poster

[Mossycat]

HI lamma

Absolutely not althogh it is tendng to get very confusing/conflicting. By the way what is an OP that people keep referring to?

 

OP = Original Poster which in this case is you

 

Mossy

[Tirnanog]

Thank god for that; I was in Wogan mode and thought it meant Old Person!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mossycat]

it hasn't cost Excel anything - the people processing the paperwork will not have been hired in specially to deal with this. they would have been paid regardless. so there is no 'loss' for Excel to recoup.

 

You don't have to show that you hired people in for a specific task.

 

OK Excel's argument goes like this

 

£2.50 DVLA fee

 

Time spent dealing with something on behalf of OP, which could reasonably include sundries (heat, lighting, electricity), specifics ie postage etc.

 

I reiterate that £10 is reasonable under these circumstances, were they asking for £30 or £40 then I would be arguing against them.

 

Mossy