Navide Akbar Litigation manager from Excel has stated they have a new strategy!

[BASFORDLAD2]

Fresh update:

 

excelfighter Today, 10:48 AM

MoneySaving Newbie

 

Join Date: Jul 2011

Posts: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

 

 

*************************************IMPORTANT UPDATE*************************************

 

I have set up a new account to give this information.......

 

I have just rung Navide AKbar the litigation manager @ EXCEL/VCS for a chat

 

He started of by saying he had been trying to get hold of me etc and said the court line was always busy(not true???)

 

I then told him of the judges finding(CPR section 31 not applying etc etc). He stated they did not receive the court documents until saturday so were unable to make the hearing and would be applying to have it set aside.

 

So he is going to make a fresh application to the court for a new hearing and have the case reinstated etc.

 

He said he didn't believe that the car owner wouldn't know who was driving and who had no responsibility to who was ever driving. He accepted that the defendant was not the driver.

 

I asked him to make comment directly on the website but he said he had no need to go on these sites as they were a play ground for children. I told him they were used to give people their rights back. He said this was scandalous

 

He advised he would be making this aware when the case is next hear (it doesnt matter that help has come from a website) , the judge wont look down on this.

 

He said he was very confident he would get this overturned on appeal when he could test the defendant (ie on the issues on who was driving etc). He was also considering taking the matter to the highest court

 

In the end its fair to to say he was getting pretty het up.

 

************

 

Can someone copy and paste this on to CAG and PEPIPOO. Looks like the defendant will need to know this.

[lamma]

A lot of sound and fury. I wonder what it signifies ?

[afcwben]

Fresh update:

 

excelfighter Today, 10:48 AM

MoneySaving Newbie

 

Join Date: Jul 2011

Posts: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

 

 

*************************************IMPORTANT UPDATE*************************************

 

 

He said he didn't believe that the car owner wouldn't know who was driving and who had no responsibility to who was ever driving.

 

How on earth is he going to prove this, they are obviously confused

[BASFORDLAD2]

The word on the street is that the litigation is on a high horse and believes Excel has some right to know who was driving the said car etc.

[afcwben]

The word on the street is that the litigation is on a high horse and believes Excel has some right to know who was driving the said car etc.

 

On what basis?

[BASFORDLAD2]

On what basis?

 

I would say because the company feels they have lost revenue etc

[afcwben]

I would say because the company feels they have lost revenue etc

 

Completely disproportionate, as their invoices are not revenue streams all they can possibly claim for is the parking fee which I am sure is due to the landowner

[Old Snowy]

I would recommend that you read the judgment in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 125 (TC).

 

I think that will entirely sum up the position with regard to where the money goes that they charge for.

[afcwben]

I would recommend that you read the judgment in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 125 (TC).

 

I think that will entirely sum up the position with regard to where the money goes that they charge for.

 

But the VAT judgement is for income recieved. On a cash accounting basis the PPC would pay VAT on charges raised that have resulted in payment recieved. So they could invoice someone for £120 (inc £20 VAT) but if they dont get paid for it they wont pay the vat man. The argument of the case is that they were claiming VAT exemptions on items they were recieving monies from and that is what they were doing wrong. So the argumnent still does not hold.

[BASFORDLAD2]

The OP has confirmed by pm that the case is still going ahead. This seems odd as they accept the guy wasn't the driver. I wonder if the journalist from the star is going. I most certainly am(is in melting mowbray 18th 20pm). Prehaps we shouldn't have been so cynical of the poster!!

[afcwben]

The OP has confirmed by pm that the case is still going ahead. This seems odd as they accept the guy wasn't the driver. I wonder if the journalist from the star is going. I most certainly am(is in melting mowbray 18th 20pm). Prehaps we shouldn't have been so cynical of the poster!!

 

This is without doubt extremely bizarre I will wait with baited breath to see what comes out.

[BASFORDLAD2]

On Mse the hearing for the 18th has been vacated. The judge has set aside the Npo strike out and is to be re listed for the 25th at 2pm

[Al27]

I would recommend that you read the judgment in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 125 (TC).

 

I think that will entirely sum up the position with regard to where the money goes that they charge for.

 

And is the VAT man going to turn down all that lovely revenue? The same VAT man that wanted to get his hands on the jaffa cakes?

[Al27]

On Mse the hearing for the 18th has been vacated. The judge has set aside the Npo strike out and is to be re listed for the 25th at 2pm

 

Getting an NPO on me would have the same effect. I know as much about driver identity as the defendant.

[afcwben]

And is the VAT man going to turn down all that lovely revenue? The same VAT man that wanted to get his hands on the jaffa cakes?

 

It is not revenue for the VAT man, in most cases they are paid VAT for monies recived offset by the VAT on monies paid out (cash accounting). Exception are big businesses who do offset VAT accounting (accounting on an accruals basis) but get their VAT back when they write off a debt. VAT man does not give a monkies if you bill 1,000 per month or 10,000 per month they just want their 20% of the cash recieved.

[BASFORDLAD2]

Well some news

 

The applicantion got dismissed again. Excel say they are still deciding wheather to appeal and their next move, they still seem to think they can proceed with getting a ccj. That would get laughed out of court.

 

Secondly navide akbar is no.longer employed by Excel.

[sameagle]

No doubt he is one of those "Litigation Managers" that we have seen referred to on here, within the last few days.

 

You remember.......'due to continued expansion... duties including issuing legal proceedings....working knowledge of contract and trespass law...background in civil law.'

 

Sam

[Cardiff Devil]

I was always under the impression that you had no automatic right of appeal in a small claims case, unless the judge had made some kind of critical error in the proceedings. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

[Al27]

The judge can refuse permission to appeal.

 

Appeals can be made if there has been an error in law, or a procedural impropriety.

 

Any appeal would go via the first avenue, but what error in law has been made? The defendant wasn't driving, has no knowledge of who was driving, was not party to any wrongdoing and was not a witness.

 

I think obtaining a NPO for a private parking invoice is tough enough, but going after a person who knows nothing is insane. Which is perhaps why Akbar has been given his P45.

 

The only purpose of this is so that the BPA can waffle on about NPO's on their member's threatening letters. Simon Renshaw-Smith is a board member remember.

 

Which makes me wonder if the BPA know something we don't about the likelihood of Registered Keeper being made 'liable' for private tickets.

[afcwben]

Which makes me wonder if the BPA know something we don't about the likelihood of Registered Keeper being made 'liable' for private tickets.

 

Personally I cannot see this happening, how can you make someone liable for another persons "breach of contract" also the question of damages would raise its head, prking in a free car park does not incur any damages. PPC's and BPA can continue to waffle on I think they are getting more desperate as more people realise this is purely a con trick

[Al27]

The wording of the Freedom Bill is all over the place. In a nutshell it states the keeper would be made liable for a parking charge notice, if the driver identity isn't known, and the charge is as agreed via a contract with the landowner's agent, and that it is irrelevant whether the vehicle was permitted to be on the land or not.

 

There are about 5 question mark over every sentence there.