Jump to content


Excel Parking; Peel Centre. Stockport *Beat em at POPLA*


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2018 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

Hello there,

i need help with a notice from Excel parking.

 

About 2 weeks ago i went to Peel centre Stockport ,

 

i stayed in car and my wife went into a shop.

 

I was under the impression that as iam staying in car i dont have to buy a parking ticket

( i know its my fault as signs were there). But

 

today i received a parking charge notice of £60 for 40 mins stay by Excel parking.

 

Iam not sure as it looks unfair to slap such a big fine for 40 mins parking.

 

This is my 1st parking fine in 14 years of driving

 

i dont know how to deal with it.

Please advise what to do

 

should i make appeal against it or

 

should i ignore this as someone told me that Parking Excel are not allowed to enforce this charge.

 

Thanks a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is NOT A FINE

 

its a speculative invoice

 

appeal for any old reason,, see the parking prankster site for info

 

get the popla number

 

and appeal to them

 

it'll cost them £27.

 

and you still wont have to pay.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

rickykhan,

 

No ticket on the car.

 

So this is ANPR job .

 

What date was the "offence".

 

What date did the letter arrive on your door mat?

 

That first letter HAS to arrive in 14 days.

 

Don't even think about paying...

 

.. There is more "fire power" on this site than you could dream of.

 

Post the dates up.. defence will follow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply. The offence was on 30/01/14 and notice came on 05/02/14. It is well between 14 days period.So should i appeal to POPLA straight away without notifying Excel people. Please reply. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters dont admit who was driving the car at the time but respond to Excel Parking by saying that the vehicle wasnt parked as defined in the Road Traffic Act (wont matter that RTA not applicable, they wont have a better code of practice to define parking). They will undoubtedly dismiss your appeal but will have to give you a code for taking your appeal to POPLA with the letter of rejection.

Also have a read of Excel's terms for payment-if they still include a £2.50 admin fee and a fee for paying by debit card they are illegal. This can be used against them later if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hi There,

Today I received POPLA decision on my appeal against Excel parking which is below. please advise what should I do next( pardon my illiteracy in legal terms)

Thanks a lot

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Peel Centre in Stockport, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that he failed to purchase a valid ticket.

It is the Appellant’s case that there was no contract between the parties, and that the charge is punitive and disproportionate to the alleged breach.

Appellants are not expected to use legal terms. By submitting that the charge is punitive, it is clear that the Appellant submits that the charge is not compensatory in nature.

The Operator does not dispute that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour.

The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. This is ‘reasonable’ in the usual contractual sense of the word, and so the calculation of any pre-estimate of loss must follow the principles used to calculate damages. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.

In this case the Operator has produced a break-down of how it submits it arrives at its pre-estimate of loss. A number of the heads include general operational costs, and costs which do not relate to the breach in question, such as write-offs for other parking charge notices. Furthermore, I find that a substantial cost referred to by the Operator – that incurred during debt recovery – is not a reasonable loss to include in the estimate. Only a minority of parking charges issued will result in costs associated with debt recovery and there is no evidence before me to show otherwise. Whilst any motorist who causes an initial loss by parking in breach of the terms of parking must 3 09 May 2014

accept that an Operator will incur costs in pursuing this loss, I am not satisfied that it would be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties that costs related to debt recovery by a third party would be incurred, and so I am not satisfied that such charges may be included within the parking charge itself.

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I need not decide any other issues.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do nothing but "Flip the cap off a beer"

 

Your appeal has been "Allowed"

You have WON

Well done

F16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that it was WON on GPEOL.. Which is working well at the moment.

 

But the Debt Collectors fees (non existent) also got a mention.

That point clearly got up the Assessors "nose".

 

Good for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations for beating this. I will update the thread as appropriate.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done. The point about debt collection costs is that they only occur after th event and so can never be part of any loss caused by the parking. The assessor made a particular point about adding other people's debt collection costs to this individual's damages claim. It would be an interesting business model to charge people for providing a service to someone else and then sending the debt collecots round when they queried it I will try that next time I sell something, bill a previous customer and then ask a third person to pick up the tab because the second person for some odd reason wouldnt pay someone else's debts..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
Well done. The point about debt collection costs is that they only occur after th event and so can never be part of any loss caused by the parking. The assessor made a particular point about adding other people's debt collection costs to this individual's damages claim. It would be an interesting business model to charge people for providing a service to someone else and then sending the debt collecots round when they queried it I will try that next time I sell something, bill a previous customer and then ask a third person to pick up the tab because the second person for some odd reason wouldnt pay someone else's debts..

 

 

 

I am in the EXACT same position. Any advice to help craft an email eould be greatly appreciated. Also not sure who was driving me or wife and its a company car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any advice as I'm in the exact same position. Do you have an email template?

 

 

you need to start a new thread

 

 

of your own

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...