Excel Parking Court Summons - for cheque laterly cancelled as not a 'legal' parking charge - **WON**

[martin g]

I hope you will be claiming your wasted costs?

 

Martin g

[Ell-enn]

Excellent news - well done for sticking to your guns

[BASFORDLAD2]

Brilliant news.

 

I have posted this on Sheffield forum where Excel have their office (which if i am not mistaken is under some rock lol)

 

There is on that forum an employee by the username of BONJON. If you look in Sheffield discussions you will see the threads where he defends PPC's to the hilt!

 

I cant post the link as this new account (but been around for years just couldn't log in on my old username)

 

Sheffield forum - Sheffield discussion

[DBC]

Here is the link to Sheffield Forum

[BASFORDLAD2]

thanks dbc

[testament1uk]

Courts have been in contact to advise that they recieved a defence and cheque for the fee this afternoon but as the case has already been struck out they have sent the cheque back to Excel advising struck out.

 

Excel can still make an application to relist if they choose to do so.

 

They returned the allocation questionaire to the courts "LATE"

 

They returned the court listing fee "LATE"

 

They filed their defence to the court and myself "LATE"

 

What I didn't realise with small claims is they can't pass on the cost of a solicitor if they win.

 

This would probably explain why the defence they submitted looked like it had been put together by the office cleaner!!

 

So I've got to wait to see if they try to relist.........

[lamma]

So has Excel ! Proper result.

[seftonview]

Great news. I'd very much suggest you consider making an application for costs on grounds of Excel's unreasonable behaviour in the conduct of the claim. If you need any help with this, let me know.

 

Seftonview

[PPC $ cambuster]

They returned the allocation questionaire to the courts "LATE;They returned the court listing fee ;LATE;They filed their defence to the court and myself LATE;What I didn't realise with small claims is they can't pass on the cost of a solicitor if they win. This would probably explain why the defence they submitted looked like it had been put together by the office cleaner ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ They were probably too busy handling all the other cases of non payment that they successfully (LoL) take to court Ha Ha, what a bunch of chancers

Edited June 4, 2011 by PPC $ cambuster

[bondy lad]

in the words of my generation mr sobell,,up yourssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss,great news, well done.

[tomtubby]

Excellent news.

[testament1uk]

Case relisted without sanction - so here we go again!!!!

[NYM]

Case relisted without sanction - so here we go again!!!!

 

 

Sorry to drag up an 'old' thread. I can't believe that Excel Parking have had the audacity to do that but I'd be very interested to hear the outcome of the re-listed case.

[testament1uk]

Sorry to drag up an 'old' thread. I can't believe that Excel Parking have had the audacity to do that but I'd be very interested to hear the outcome of the re-listed case.

 

To give a recap. Excel had taken action against me for dishonouring a cheque and as is well known this is very difficult to defend. We ended up having three hearings in Walsall County Court and they sent their legal rep on the first visit and on the other two they had a manager and assistant turn up. On our final hearing the case was heard and my defence of "no consideration in the transaction" was successful and therefore the judge allowed my cheque to be cancelled. This was due to the fact that I had not parked to shop but to visit my place of employment. The judge stated that as I had not parked to shop and it was a shoppers car park he would allow an action of tresspass against me and awarded £25 for each day I parked. This with the basic costs meant that I had to pay £115 to Excel.

 

Excel parking had originally invoiced me for £240 and later claimed £120 for the cheque. The costs of their travel to and from Sheffield on three occasions was estimated at £210 (which they did not claim)

As each visit to Walsall lasted most of the day they lost five working staff days.

 

My employers gave me the time off and stated that they considered it a training excercise.

 

Would I do it again - Yes

 

Would I write a cheque for an invoice again - No

 

What the judge did confirm was that had I been a shopper who overstayed in the car park and had refused to pay the invoice, I would have been able to successfully defend on the principle of the claimant only being able to demand a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". My big mistake was sending a cheque.

 

I must also add that the support I had from this forum and others who made contact was invaluable and I would always recommend not paying these invoices and that "as the judge said in my case - these charges are unenforceable in law as they are a penalty"

 

I was in a catch 22 situation. To defend the cheque I had to be a tresspasser and as a tresspasser they could claim a small damages fee. Had I been a shopper the judge would have agreed that this was an unenforceable penalty but the "Bills of Exchange Act" would have forced me to honour my cheuqe.

[caro]

To give a recap. Excel had taken action against me for dishonouring a cheque and as is well known this is very difficult to defend. We ended up having three hearings in Walsall County Court and they sent their legal rep on the first visit and on the other two they had a manager and assistant turn up. On our final hearing the case was heard and my defence of "no consideration in the transaction" was successful and therefore the judge allowed my cheque to be cancelled. This was due to the fact that I had not parked to shop but to visit my place of employment. The judge stated that as I had not parked to shop and it was a shoppers car park he would allow an action of tresspass against me and awarded £25 for each day I parked. This with the basic costs meant that I had to pay £115 to Excel.

 

Excel parking had originally invoiced me for £240 and later claimed £120 for the cheque. The costs of their travel to and from Sheffield on three occasions was estimated at £210 (which they did not claim)

As each visit to Walsall lasted most of the day they lost five working staff days.

 

My employers gave me the time off and stated that they considered it a training excercise.

 

Would I do it again - Yes

 

Would I write a cheque for an invoice again - No

 

What the judge did confirm was that had I been a shopper who overstayed in the car park and had refused to pay the invoice, I would have been able to successfully defend on the principle of the claimant only being able to demand a "genuine pre-estimate of loss". My big mistake was sending a cheque.

 

I must also add that the support I had from this forum and others who made contact was invaluable and I would always recommend not paying these invoices and that "as the judge said in my case - these charges are unenforceable in law as they are a penalty"

 

I was in a catch 22 situation. To defend the cheque I had to be a tresspasser and as a tresspasser they could claim a small damages fee. Had I been a shopper the judge would have agreed that this was an unenforceable penalty but the "Bills of Exchange Act" would have forced me to honour my cheuqe.

 

Thanks for coming back but I'm more than a little confused. Who did you have to pay for trespassing? Was this a fine you had to pay the court or was it excel? I assume you weren't parked on excels land so why should you have been ordered to pay them anything?

 

EDIT I see you had to pay excel. When was the hearing?

[DBC]

Glad to see yet another judge pointing out the very obvious fact that PPCs claim for amounts of money which aren't a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Of course, even more important ( but missed by the judge), is that the loss must be suffered by the landowner, and not by their agent. I bet Excel weren't planning to pay that money over to the landowner.

Edited January 1, 2013 by DBC

[tomtubby]

Excellent result and such court decesions really ought to be brought to the attention of POPLA asap.

[sameagle]

"a genuine pre-estimate of loss"

 

What exactly is one of those, I wonder, it sounds like it's been made up by somebody with little, or no, grasp of English, rather in the style of "modern management", all qualifications, but not an ounce of common sense.

 

If I come to your house to carry out work, I can give you a price for carrying out the work, no more, no less, or I can provide you with an estimate, based on an approximation, using various factors, [and I can, if pushed, even tell you what upper, and lower, limits, the estimate will have]

 

What, precisely, would you be expecting me to provide, for it to be called a "pre-estimate" ?

 

Sam

[DBC]

"A genuine pre-estimate of loss" is a well-known legal term and can be summed up thus (from a Wiki article):-

 

It is well established that liquidated damages for breach of contract are void if they seek to punish rather than to compensate for loss. For a contractual "penalty" clause to be valid, one must show that it was drawn up after a bona fide attempt to estimate loss in advance of the breach. For example, a motorway construction contract may have an estimated finish date with a "penalty clause" for every day late; but provided that this date is realistic and the "penalty" is a reasonable approximation of loss, the clause will be valid. The validity of the clause will be advanced if there is an equivalent bonus for finishing early.

[lamma]

How can the PPC's charges be loss to the landowner unless that amount goes through the books of the landowner for every parking fee that is paid (assuming that its not a free car park) . Isn't it amazing that no matter who the landowner is, what part of the country they are on, what the nature of their business is, what their turnover per customer is, the size of the car park and the time of day or night seem to make to difference to the pre-estimate of the landowner's losses. Amounts that a PPC seeks are remarkably consistent despite all the landowner variables. Is there conclusion or inference that can be drawn ?

[DBC]

The main trouble is that the BPA's guidelines mention a figure of £100 . Most PPCs are using that as a target figure for their charges. It's been reported on another forum that the new owners of Town and City are dissatisfied with the rate of return of their charges and are thinking of raising them to the "industry" norm. So much for a true estimate of "loss".

Edited January 3, 2013 by DBC

[dx100uk]

bit like RLP!!

 

fiction and never true!!

 

dx

[Old Snowy]

The main trouble is that the BPA's guidelines mention a figure of £100 . Most PPCs are using that as a target figure for their charges. It's been reported on another forum that the new owners of Town and City are dissatisfied with the rate of return of their charges and are think of raising them to the "industry" norm. So much for a true estimate of "loss".

Correct. The giveaway may be found on this link (Opens as a pdf of a Powerpoint presentation - see Pages 12, 13 and 48) - Click Here. This is from the website of Town and City's parent company - Car Parking Technologies Ltd - based in NZ.

 

Here T&CP aka CPT discuss civil penalty revenues and - on a T&CP badged page - describe how they intend to "review penalty...rates...to ensure we are charging market rates"

 

As DBC says, this hardly amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

[lamma]

The main trouble is that the BPA's guidelines mention a figure of £100 . Most PPCs are using that as a target figure for their charges. It's been reported on another forum that the new owners of Town and City are dissatisfied with the rate of return of their charges and are thinking of raising them to the "industry" norm. So much for a true estimate of "loss".

 

In which case the BPA is either complicit in pre-estimates of landowner losses NOT being used or is incompetent and thus should not be an ATA. The BPA guideline of £100 is the elephant in the room and should not be "taken as read". In law it is only the landowner's losses that can be pursued and this utterly destroys the PPC business model. The BPA guideline amount is to paper over this crack, or rather this yawning chasm.