Jump to content


Success against excel parking at popla


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2638 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I appealed against an "illegal invoice" as I call them, back in April.Excel parking ,Canal street Nottingham.I asked for loads of documents like who is the landowner, Excels contract with the landowner, a pre estimate of Excels losses etc.They never came up with anything.They also failed to come up with proof of their losses to POPLA. the Reference No. is 2561654014.The assessor was Farah Ahmad, who stated quote:- "It is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellants alleged breach.However,the operator has not provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim.I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated.In addition,the operator has included "Central Payments Office(CPO) Indirect Overheads".I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellants breach.As the operator has not produced a breakdown of costs,I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to the other heads of claim listed by the operator.On this occasion,I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the durden.In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was agenuine pre estimate of loss.Accordingly,this appeal must be allowed".Unquote..............That makes it 33-0 to me.Not all my tickets.I do them for drivers at work, family, friends etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When faced with such demands for proof of contract they send nothing rather than risk the possibility that someone then decides that their contract is null and void and they either get sued big time or even get their collar felt for misrepresenation under the theft act.

They will be happy to save a few quid on photocopying knwing the direction the appeal will go so just damage limitation.

A more interesting case was reported in the paper today where a chap sued Npower twice for harassment and time wasting. This is the same bloke who won the landmark case of harassment against British gas. Why does that affect private parking? Because he put in a claim for wasting his time that was a cause of action rather than a counterclaim. This means that it has been accepted that all of these DCA's who waste your time by sending out their threatograms or begging letters can be sued for the time spent reading them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A more interesting case was reported in the paper today where a chap sued Npower twice for harassment and time wasting. This is the same bloke who won the landmark case of harassment against British gas. Why does that affect private parking? Because he put in a claim for wasting his time that was a cause of action rather than a counterclaim. This means that it has been accepted that all of these DCA's who waste your time by sending out their threatograms or begging letters can be sued for the time spent reading them.

 

Was this in a county court / court of first instance?

Or a court binding on the county court?

 

If the latter, do you know if the case has been 'reported'?

It would be nice to have a citation to quote as an authority if this was a binding judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...