Excel

[lilya]

I have being corresponding with the wonderful people at Excel over an appeal,

where I was the driver of the vehicle which was registered to my partners name.

 

It's the old story of over staying by 20 mins (Chorlton Car Park).

 

I had paid for parking and was supposed to pay an extra 50p or some such if I stayed after 6pm, which wasn't, in my opinion,

clearly stated of I would have just paid for 3 hours and opposed to 2.

 

as my partner was not driving we have written the standard appeal and my hubby has told them he is unwilling to to disclose driver details.

 

the latest letter we have recieved is quoting a rule 31.18 of the Civil Procedure Rule and, in addition, 31.16 and 31.17 (quote)

which do not limit any other power which the court may have to order (a) disclosure before the proceedings have started; and (b) disclosure against a person who is not a party to proceedings.

 

The lovely Mr Renshawe-Smiths sidekicks refer me to Excel Parking Ltd v Lex Autolease in the Leeds District Registry of the High Court and Vehicle Control Services

(which I assume is his other company) v Susan Ibbotson heard in S****horpe County Court....phew!!!!

 

Does any one know anything about these cases..

..there is no detail outlined and I can find nothing via Google.

 

Not once in the letter does he mention my hubby is obliged to disclose details...

.so are these rules and court cases more scare tactics?

 

Interestingly, after a court threat and putting my fine up to £100, he has now lowered it to £60.

 

The funniest bit...'Our previous correspondence has been written to emphasise the positive obligation on parties to engage in frank

(!!!) open (!!!) and honest () dialogue in a concious effort to minimise costs

and in a concerted effort to reduce the likeihood of Litigation' Hmmmmm Mr R-S, your last corresponence was to whack the fine up and threaten me with court!!!!

[lilya]

Opps sorry the above mentioned cases - Mr R-S states the court granted in their favour to disclose driver details....anyone know anything about this? Also touches on something called the Norwich Pharmacal Principle which he has very kindly photocopied and highlighted for me....more recycling!

[crem]

He forgot to mention that rule 31.16, 31.17 and 31.18 do not apply to cases listed in the small claims court (which is where parking claims are heard) and he also overlooked the fact that if they applied for a NPO it would cost them 10 times the value of any claim they would hope to win against you (which is not recoverable through the court)

[lilya]

Thanks crem.....silly really but I could go on and on replying to these letters and issuing new challenges....I wonder whether he is in for the long haul, 'cos I certainly am....turning into a bit of a nice hobby for me

[bondy lad]

i know this car park well,,

and excell even better,

 

,they recently were taken to court in stockport and were soundly spanked by michael cutts,

and back in 2008 judge blasted them for frightening and intimidating tactics v victoria hertherington -jakeman needless to say they lost,

 

the local chorlton mp john leech was supposed to do something about this lot 2 years ago but to date nothing has happened,,

 

did you actually appeal to them??????

 

my advice is to ignore,,

 

unless you are doing this for a laugh with them,,,

 

an appeal to a ppc=automatic lose,

,they want your money,

nothing else,,

incidentally if they actually claim to have won in court its nonsense as it was a set up job

as they sent one or two of their employees or associates to plead guilty again another tactic.

[lilya]

Thanks bondy lad, the challenging/appealling has become like an experiment!!!! Honestly, I can write them a letter every 2 weeks for the next two years if they want. Heard of the Victoria H-J case but will look into the Stockport one....something else to throw at them. Yep, they claim these 2 cases...one against Lex Autolease in Leeds and one against a Susan Ibbotson in S****horpe. I have read awful things about them...fining people for driving through thr car park (which has always been a cut through) etc. I have tried to spread the word amongst the people I know may use the car park...hopefully it'll spread further. For me though, amusing distraction innit!

[esmerobbo]

Excel did get an NPO against a car lease/hire company but I didn't think it was Lex, I was under the impression is was Alphabet anyhow that was because the car lease company kept sending them a standard bog off letter, so taking them to court with an NPO was probably worth the few hundred pounds it would cost them.

They tried a NPO at Melton Mowbray back in the summer against an individual who had 3 outstanding invoices, it got struck out first because Excel never attended, then they resubmitted the claim and it was denied and struck out.

 

Its all bluff and bluster to try and intimidate, an NPO would cost them win or lose so they ain't going to go that route again in a hurry.

[Al27]

NPO's against lease companies aren't particularly noteworthy. They're unlikely to put up much of a fight, but presumably can only pass on some names, which still doesn't help Excel if there are multiple drivers on the policy.

 

For every court case Renshaw waffles on about, there are 5 that have been lost by the PPC.

[lilya]

Thanks for advice so far...really useful. I have written to Mr. R-S requesting all details of all cases that have made it to court thus far..... I sure hop he has the time to help me out:roll:...or maybe his mate Mr Sobell will make an appearence soon...

[Old Snowy]

@OP - Frankly, you are wasting your time writing although I admire you tenancity. Just give up and ignore them from here on in. Excel will keep writing until doomsday so long as there is a chance they can get at the contents of your bank account or pocket. Your are truly wasting a huge amount of effort when our standard advice is simply to ignore them.

 

@esmerobbo The lease company that Excel obtained a NPO against was Alphabet and unlike attempting a NPO against a private individual, a car hire/lease company has records and that is what a NPO was originally designed to obtain. Trying to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal to oblige someone to disclose their recollection is overly draconian which, I believe, was the reason why the application at Melton Mowbray was struck out. I'm sure our friend Navide could tell us in detail!

[lilya]

Thanks for the info. on NPO. Think that I will stop replying, would like to return to sender but I guess any contact at all is futile. One question (think I already know the answer but would like clarification) my partner is slightly concerned about his credit rating, I assured him it will be ok but as he runs his own business there is a lot on the line for him. Am I right that any court actions by EXCEL will not affect his rating adversly? Thanks again, the advice here is just what I was after.

[bondy lad]

oi,your not listening,read my post (5),,excell dont do court and see whats happened to them in the recent past,,quote,,,am i right any court action by excell,,,,wrong,,,they dont do court,, so it will not in anyway affect credit ratings,, i was in the same boat as you/partner is now,,,these people scare you,, intimidate, give you butterflies,,,etc etc,,but once (and you will) realise what type of people you are dealing with you wil be converted,,the secret,,is getting those butterfies to fly in formation and you will then relax/chill/feet up/frankie cocozza/ime a celebrity/martin cutts=yesssss spanked excell,,,victoria h-r,,another spanking for excell,,do not worry or give this another thought,,dont let them scare you,as it will make you ill,,they are the lowest of the low.good night now.

[lilya]

Cheers mate ...I'm alright though, just irritated which, you're right, is energy that could be focused on important things in life and not the Renshawe-Smiths of this world!!!

[Tony P]

my partner is slightly concerned about his credit rating, I assured him it will be ok but as he runs his own business there is a lot on the line for him. Am I right that any court actions by EXCEL will not affect his rating adversly?

 

First bear in mind that Excel can only take Court action in the Small Claims Court for their actual loss. By your calculation that is 50p. They will be very hard pressed to prove they suffered greater actual loss by the car being there.

 

Then, to affect HIS credit rating -

1. Excel has to go to small claims Court. Excel avoid Courts like Dracula the Sun.

2. Excel has to prove he was the Driver - therefore the person they would like to think owes them money

3. The District Judge has to be convinved that all the arguments and proofs you see on this WebSite are wrong.

4. The DJ has to be convinved that Excel is perfectly right, fair and fully entitled to the money.

5. The DJ grants a Judgement that the debt is payable.

6. Your Partner does not pay it.

7. A swarm of spotted pigs fly past the window.

 

Then, and only then, can a CCJ be entered against him.

 

However if you have inadvertantly admitted you were the Driver (or even the Driver has to reveal this following a succesful Excel NPO application to the Courts), for YOUR credit rating to be affected-

1. Excel has to go to small claims Court. Excel avoid Courts like Dracula the Sun.

2. The District Judge has to be convinved that all the arguments and proofs you see on this WebSite are wrong.

3. The DJ has to be convinved that Excel is perfectly right, fair and fully entitled to the money.

4. The DJ grants a Judgement that the debt is payable.

5. You do not pay it.

7. A second swarm of spotted pigs fly past the window.

 

Then, and only then, can a CCJ be entered against you.

 

Your greatest difficulty is ignoring the stream of letters, some with LARGE LETTERS and even real scary Red letters and talk of such irrelevancies as Baliffs, Prison, Public Flogging and Hanging.

 

Actually, you will find putting the letters carefully and deliberatly into the recycle box will be amazingly satisfying and calming. Enjoy it.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Tony P
Spelling.

[lilya]

Thanks Tony P:-D. Not admitted to being the driver and, after all the excellent advice and forums I have been on would never do that...in a million years and I have a feeling Excel would continue sending invoices for at least that long!!!! Have decided to go down the ignoring route, unless they serve court stamped papers. Tempted to make a claim against THEM for haressment thought

[bondy lad]

i promise you this, you will recieve those court papers,,,,AFTER THE POPE GETS MARRIED,,,,well done to ignore.

[Ibbo]

I have being corresponding with the wonderful people at Excel over an appeal,

where I was the driver of the vehicle which was registered to my partners name.

 

It's the old story of over staying by 20 mins (Chorlton Car Park).

 

I had paid for parking and was supposed to pay an extra 50p or some such if I stayed after 6pm, which wasn't, in my opinion,

clearly stated of I would have just paid for 3 hours and opposed to 2.

 

as my partner was not driving we have written the standard appeal and my hubby has told them he is unwilling to to disclose driver details.

 

the latest letter we have recieved is quoting a rule 31.18 of the Civil Procedure Rule and, in addition, 31.16 and 31.17 (quote)

which do not limit any other power which the court may have to order (a) disclosure before the proceedings have started; and (b) disclosure against a person who is not a party to proceedings.

 

The lovely Mr Renshawe-Smiths sidekicks refer me to Excel Parking Ltd v Lex Autolease in the Leeds District Registry of the High Court and Vehicle Control Services

(which I assume is his other company) v Susan Ibbotson heard in S****horpe County Court....phew!!!!

 

Does any one know anything about these cases..

..there is no detail outlined and I can find nothing via Google.

 

Not once in the letter does he mention my hubby is obliged to disclose details...

.so are these rules and court cases more scare tactics?

 

Interestingly, after a court threat and putting my fine up to £100, he has now lowered it to £60.

 

The funniest bit...'Our previous correspondence has been written to emphasise the positive obligation on parties to engage in frank

(!!!) open (!!!) and honest () dialogue in a concious effort to minimise costs

and in a concerted effort to reduce the likeihood of Litigation' Hmmmmm Mr R-S, your last corresponence was to whack the fine up and threaten me with court!!!!

 

Hi.

My first time on here and I am Susan Ibbotson's other half. VCS applied to the court for an NPO after she refused to name the driver of her car. The matter went to an hearing prior to going to the SCC but my wife not being well didn't turn up and she was ordered to name the driver which happened to be me.

 

VCS were awarded their costs of £42.50 which we paid. VCS then took action against me and I basically told them where to shove it but they filed court papers at the last minute hoping to win by default but I had my defence ready and printed so they were sucked in when I filed it on time.

 

Case No 1SE09849 (Sc unthorpe CC 16/5/12)

 

On the 16th May 2012 VCS lost their case at Sc unthorpe County Court. VCS v Ronald Ibbotson and were ordered by District Judge McLlaine to refund our £42.50 also. The bottom line was that ONLY THE LANDOWNER can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents(VCS) and then the landowner has to prove damages(unlikely).

 

Keep your eyes peeled on this case as Judge McLlaine made some very important rulings against this company to be circulated to other courts plus the BPA were also to be informed about VCS being "naughty boys" as this information (ie Only the landowner) was available to them in their contract with the BPA and Judge McLlaine threatened them with Contempt Of Court for bringing the case to his court in the first place unless they came up with a good explanation as to why they did so by today(18th).

 

As I said keep your eyes peeled!!

Edited May 21, 2012 by citizenB
formatted for easier reading - additional information

[instrumentsofjoy]

Interesting that the judge said only the landowner can take action.

 

Some VAT judges said the same to Vehicle Control Services (part of Excel)

 

Do keep us informed!

 

I am assuming this was in the small claims court.

Edited May 19, 2012 by instrumentsofjoy
URL did not work

[Nev Met]

Hi.

My first time on here and I am Susan Ibbotson's other half. VCS applied to the court for an NPO after she refused to name the driver of her car. The matter went to an hearing prior to going to the SCC but my wife not being well didn't turn up and she was ordered to name the driver which happened to be me.

 

VCS were awarded their costs of £42.50 which we paid. VCS then took action against me and I basically told them where to shove it but they filed court papers at the last minute hoping to win by default but I had my defence ready and printed so they were sucked in when I filed it on time.

 

On the 16th May 2012 VCS lost their case at S****horpe County Court. VCS v Ronald Ibbotson and were ordered by District Judge McLlaine to refund our £42.50 also. The bottom line was that ONLY THE LANDOWNER can take the matter to court and not people acting as their agents(VCS) and then the landowner has to prove damages(unlikely).

 

Keep your eyes peeled on this case as Judge McLlaine made some very important rulings against this company to be circulated to other courts plus the BPA were also to be informed about VCS being "naughty boys" as this information (ie Only the landowner) was available to them in their contract with the BPA and Judge McLlaine threatened them with Contempt Of Court for bringing the case to his court in the first place unless they came up with a good explanation as to why they did so by today(18th).

 

As I said keep your eyes peeled!!

 

I've sent you a Private Message asking you to email me - I would be grateful if you could do so, thanks.

Edited May 20, 2012 by citizenB

[Old Snowy]

Interesting that the judge said only the landowner can take action.

 

Some VAT judges said the same to Vehicle Control Services (part of Excel)

 

Do keep us informed!

 

I am assuming this was in the small claims court.

T'would seem that news from the tax tribunal has filtered down mighty quickly - well comparatively so for the civil courts.

 

As I understand it the majority of PPC's use a model contract. It would now seem that as part of any defended case, more crucially than previously, that the contract between the PPC and the landowners must be brought into consideration. If, as might reasonably be suspected, PPC's simply do not have sufficient interest in the land in question to be able to offer parking in the first place then the PPC business model is starting to look decidedly shakey.