Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK thanks for that.   I have no prior correspondence with EXCEL and therefore have not admitted being the driver. As it happens, I wasn't.   They have not responded to my initial request for documents and therefore I have no details on planning permission. I guess I'll assume and assert that they haven't in the absence of them providing proof to the contrary.   Meanwhile, I've had a letter from EXCEL offering a reduced payment. I will attach this.   I'm wondering whether I should ignore the letter or respond. I will not accept the offer.   
    • Thanks for all responses I’ve been looking at other threads and now feel totally confused as I’m scared of actually having to go to court as I have no idea how to defend this! Torn between just setting up a payment plan and not wanting them to win! 
    • Thanks so much!    1. on planning permission my WS says: The signs did not have planning permission under the Town and County planning.  I have an email stating there was no planning permission from the council. The signs do not fall under deemed consent.  * Their WS says they do not need planning permission by being an approved operator of the trade association, and it is not for the  county court to determine planning permission.   2. Excel are trying to say I’m dishonest.  Their WS states my defence appears to be cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCN's. Large portions are non sensical and irrelevant to the claim   This is Unacceptable as the defendant has signed a statement of truth whilst clearly not being the defendants knowledge    Q Any comments?      Their WS states that I alleged I received no correspondence, and the onus is on the driver to update DVLA. I did update DVLA, but I moved numerous times due to domestic abuse. This was in my set aside and part of why it was granted. Evidence was provided at that time. Q Is this going to come up again?    *Also they question how I would be able to comment on the signs if I’m not the driver of the vehicle, as she would not have first hand knowledge, therefore it is the claimants position that she is being disingenuous.    I state that photos will be provided in my bundle. I actually haven’t submitted any but I do also know somebody who had PCN from the same carpark,   He gave me all his evidence etc, Mr Booth and he won his case. I linked to the parking pranksters article on it.  Q So is it ok to use such websites and to use photos from someone else?    Thanks    I put Excel to strict proof that any contract can exist  *Their WS states it falls foul of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999(UTCCR 1999). Claims the regulations don't apply   This is the link to Mr Booth case who won on the signage  Also the PCN is completely blurred and illegible in their WS evidence  Is this another point?    I have his his email regarding planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent     http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/excel-parking-v-booth.html?m=1   He had a number of lines of defence, but focussed on the poor signage in the car park. Excel Parking used BW Legal who hired a local solicitor to turn up. She wasn't that well prepared and had not bothered to bring printed copies of the case. When the Judge asked her to refer to defence photographs provided of poor signage she used her phone. Mr Booth admitted that he never bought a ticket - but this was because he never saw the signage signage in the first place and so no contract was entered into. Excel provided pictures of the signage, date stamped for August 2015, but the event was in March 2015. They also provided at the last minute a witness statement from the landowner stating he gave authority, date stamped September 2015. The PCN they sent in their Witness statement was a photocopy and completely blurred and illegible. Mr Booth's arguments were that; 1. Poor signage - there were "staff only" parking signs on the building wall next to where he parked - he questioned the claimant's right to sue someone parked against these bays 2. He questioned their authority to act on behalf of the landlord 3. He questioned whether the signage had planning consent. The Judge followed this through with Excel's representative: "Did they have a contract which said these bays were exempt or not exempt from Excel issuing tickets on the vehicles parked? As Excel had not bothered to supply a copy of the actual contract, the solicitor could not confirm either way. Regarding. planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent, and that there was no planning application on file. The judge said if Mr Booth had only brought this point up he may have found differently. The judge clearly had doubts about the signs where any reasonable person would think the same and that the "staff only" signs would not lead them to think there was a requirement to buy a ticket. He took a recess for 10 mins then made his judgment. Claim refused - the parking signs cause confusion , and there was prof there was a contract which allowed the charges claimed. He went on to state that he was staggered that serial claims companies like Excel do not take a photo of the signs at the time of erection. Why do they wait until litigation to take photos. There was no evidence that the signs were there at all on the date.    
    • Not anymore now that the right have manipulated voters into voting for a conservative dictatorship.   All of what you've said is just another worrying aspect of what the future holds 
    • Just like all the rubbish spouted over the past 4 years, would, would, would.  What you really mean is COULD.    
  • Our picks

Jan4a

Eversheds - NOT law firm of the year then!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3662 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Taken from RollonFriday - a legal website. They're talking about various law firms and the Law Firm of the Year Award table and this is what they say about Eversheds:

 

"But it's not surprising to find Eversheds at the ar*e end of the table, given its four rounds of redundancies. Typical complaints include the crap redundancy payments, claims that the firm is now working its remaining staff to breaking point and the feeling that "the firm is run by a bunch of lawyers who would murder their own grandmothers if they thought there was a profit in it"

 

Just thought you might find it amusing to see how they're viewed within the legal profession - I did! The complaints mentioned have come from their own lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROTFLMAO!!! Oh that just made my afternoon!


"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter" - Sir Winston Churchill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they are called Eversheds because they are for EVER SHEDding jobs

 

 

Oh well please yourselves


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the firm is run by a bunch of lawyers who would murder their own grandmothers if they thought there was a profit in it"

 

 

Says it all, a bunch of spivs (alledgedly) out to make a fast profit with no expertise


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the firm is run by a bunch of lawyers who would murder their own grandmothers if they thought there was a profit in it"

 

 

Says it all, a bunch of spivs (alledgedly) out to make a fast profit with no expertise

 

the firm is run by a bunch of lawyers who would murder their own grandmothers if they thought there was a profit in it"

 

Perhaps they have expertise in 'doing in' grandma's?

 

MAny thanks OP made my day!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing thing about sites like Rollon is they always throw up an interesting paradox.

 

Quality of firm: Eversheds must be awful if that's what their staff think of them.

 

Quality of staff: If it's that bad, why are they still there?

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firm only been really bad for last couple of years since all control passed to London office - regional offices such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham now have to do as they are told. Some high profile people in the regions have already left, a lot are waiting for the recession to end to do the same.

 

They're basically using the recession to do what they like - rest of profession know that, hence comments in ROF.

 

They're digging their own grave - once recession ends all their good people will leave and they'll struggle to recruit with their reputation.

 

They only do debt collection out of Leeds office and they try to keep that quiet cos they try to compete with the big London based corporate law firms - never seen their names on here though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They only do debt collection out of Leeds office

 

Apologies - looks like I am wrong with above comment! Should have said office I knew didn't do debt collection and it was kept so quiet I didn't know other offices did it either until I saw it on CAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firm only been really bad for last couple of years since all control passed to London office - regional offices such as Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham now have to do as they are told. Some high profile people in the regions have already left, a lot are waiting for the recession to end to do the same.

 

They're basically using the recession to do what they like - rest of profession know that, hence comments in ROF.

 

They're digging their own grave - once recession ends all their good people will leave and they'll struggle to recruit with their reputation.

Seriously, both of them will just up and go? where will that leave them? who will they get to fold letters properly?

 

They only do debt collection out of Leeds office and they try to keep that quiet cos they try to compete with the big London based corporate law firms:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: - never seen their names on here though!

 

I though eversheds meant always have and always will work out of two garden sheds

 

So Jan, how long did you work there for?:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

Edited by Jan4a
duplication - lappy problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are known as The Shed :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they are known as The Shed :D

 

 

Tools are kept in a shed, not that I'm inferring or implying. Just making a factual statement:D.

 

Hardly Manches or Clifford Chance though are they!

 

 

Mercifully for me both my grannies died a long time ago, so that makes me untouchable:p.

 

I'll stop digging now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was young Mrs Bell from our village went down to her shed frequently because that is where her outside toilet was. Nothing changes.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...