Excel/BW claimform - PCN Peel Centre Stockport 18/06/2015

[ericsbrother]

acknowledge the claim and if you want to submit a skeleton defence on the form

say that the debt is denied as no contract offered to be considered so cannot be a breach of contract.

 

You will then have ages to gather all your other evidence and they will have to pay an allocation fee

and gather their evidence that proves you read their conditions and accepted them.

 

 

Parking Prankster's blogspot has a nice little map of the car park

that outlines every space that you cannot see any signs from.

that will help you/

 

 

Also look into the planning permission for the signage, no PP , no contract.

[Pastry]

Thanks Ericsbrother. I'll do that

[Pastry]

Name of the Claimant ? - EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

Date of issue – . - 26 MAY 2016

 

What is the claim for – -

 

1.The Claimant's Claim is for the sum of £100.00 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant

in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on xx/06/2015 (Issue Date)

at XX.XX.XX at the Peel Centre - Stockport Anpr Charging Scheme std (60-100).

 

2.The PCN relates to Ford under the Registration XXX XXXX.

The terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the PCN,

but the defendant failed to do so.

Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

 

3.The claim also includes Statuary Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984

at a rate of 8% per annum a daily rate of 0.02 from xx/06/2015 to xx/05/2016 being an amount of £7.

The claimant also claims £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN Terms and Conditions

What is the value of the claim? £236

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? PCN

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 2015

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. EXCEL

The Claimant's legal representative is BW Legal Services Limited

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?

I received an initial request for £60 and then various other demands thereafter

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

Why did you cease payments? NA

What was the date of your last payment? NA

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? NA

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementicon plan? No

 

Hello,

 

I followed the link dx100uk sent me earlier and saw this form. It was suggested that I fill it out and attach to this thread, so here goes ...

[Pastry]

Hello all.

I am going to return the 'Acknowledgement of service' form to county court,

which gives me a bit longer to prepare my defence,

which is an edited version of steampowered's suggested defence.

 

 

My only worry is that some of it hinges on whether or not Excel are the landowners at the Peel Centre.

I've tried to do some research online and can't find any definitive answers,

although somebody on a forum thought that Peel Holdings own Excel, which kind of does make Excel the landowner ..?

Anyway, see what you think to this:

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of Ford xxxxxxx.

 

2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in the Peel Centre car park as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.

As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC[2012] UKUT 129 (TCC),

any contract requires offer and acceptance.

 

 

The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services

and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account,

as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.

 

 

Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

4. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £160.86 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

 

The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons:

(a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay;

(b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant;

© the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and

(d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

 

5. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.

It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all

[dx100uk]

do the AOS online at the MCOL site

there is no need to use the claimform at all.

 

 

even for the defence which does not need to be filed until 4pm Monday 27th

[Pastry]

Thanks dx100uk - all done online. Will await some feedback from everyone on the defence I outlined above ...

[ericsbrother]

look up the previous court cases from the Peel Centre

where Trevor lost and vented his opinion that the judge should be sacked for disagreeing with him.

Get hold of that claim number and the court details and use it as part of your defence.

 

The judge will have to consider it even if ultimately the judgement is decided on other matters.

The result above was about the inadequacy of the signage there and if you look at the parking prankster's blog you will find a map of the car aprk and the signs so you can determine whether there was actually a chance of spotting a sign when you parked ( about50/50) produce this as part of your evidence when the time comes

 

Excel arent landowners and I'm sure they have the right to make claims as they have been to court

before as a consequence of this site

but it is worth getting a copy of the agreement as it may well have expired!

 

your point 4 has largely been destroyed by the Beavis result

so it is no longer necessary to show the actual loss

but just that the charge not be "unconscionable"

and that effectively changes the onus to the defendant to show otherwise rather than the claimant provong the value of the claim.

 

 

Just be aware that parking co's will say Beavis allows them to do anything without any thought required.

[Pastry]

Thanks Ericsbrother. I have tried to google the case you mentioned using various combinations of the terms 'Excel parking', 'Trevor', Peel Centre', 'Judge' and 'sacked', but have not found anything. Do you have the defendant's full name or any other details that might help me find details of the case?

[ericsbrother]

go to the parking pranksters blogspot, look at last month's blogs and you will find something that you can then reference. You could try emailing him via his link, the information is public so no reason why he cant tell you.

[Pastry]

Thanks. I'll have a look now.

[Newtsmon]

Following this with interest .

 

..just received another letter from BW, regarding Peel Centre 'parking' Feb 2015.

 

Hoping to use the signage issue which was actually the case as I never left the car

(just waiting in there for a take-away from Nandos for my daughter).

 

The parking prankster comment/photo regarding signage seems to suggest a good case for Peel St.

 

I live 40 miles from the car park though,

does anyone know if the signs on the photo are still the same or when these signs were in place.

 

Are there any other signs displayed with better font etc that they could argue back?

Thanks

[dx100uk]

Following this with interest .

 

..just received another letter from BW, regarding Peel Centre 'parking' Feb 2015.

 

Hoping to use the signage issue which was actually the case as I never left the car

(just waiting in there for a take-away from Nandos for my daughter).

 

The parking prankster comment/photo regarding signage seems to suggest a good case for Peel St.

 

I live 40 miles from the car park though,

does anyone know if the signs on the photo are still the same or when these signs were in place.

 

Are there any other signs displayed with better font etc that they could argue back? Thanks

 

 

please don't hi-jack a court claim thread

go start a new thread

of your own

[ericsbrother]

the prankster made it clear they changes their signs but I dont know what date, if it is not clear from his blog then ask him, he doesnt bite.

[Newtsmon]

please don't hi-jack a court claim thread

go start a new thread

of your own

 

Having multiple threads about the same car park, which are likely to have similar issues doesn't sound particularly effective

[dx100uk]

Having multiple threads about the same car park, which are likely to have similar issues doesn't sound particularly effective

 

 

each is diff and specific to the OP

 

 

and ofcourse multiple threads exposes the scale of the issue

these people are causing by trying to fleece

people on a speculative invoice

and a speculative court claim.

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

If everyone lived in the same town and was expected to attend the same court at the same time an application could be make to take on of them as a test case and the rest go with that decision.

 

that would work if all of the claims were for exactly the same thing but they arent going to be. Some paid, some didnt, some overstayed etc so unless we can get a cast iron defence such as no planning permission for their signage and machinery then each will have to be taken on its merits.

 

However, ASK the local council if planning permission has been granted for the signs and cameras at the site under the Town and Country Planning Act. NoPP, then a criminal offence has been committed and you cannot enter into a criminal compact, even if you wanted to so their claims will all fail.

 

If someone can post up her that they have checked out the PP then we would suggest that writing to the court ( and VCS) that their game is up and you will be looking at a class action against them for their deceptions. Might not get there but everyone who trots into the same court will already have VCS on the ropes.

 

It is a shame that 99% of the people getting one of these claim forms will not read this thread and VCS will win a massive number by default.

 

The supposed £54 solicitors fees are a con as well, they are paying not even half that and there is the possibility of claiming Champerty and maintenance by BW if someone can get hold of one of their invoices but in any case it is just adding money when none is due and sharing the proceeds.

Edited June 13, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Cheeky chappie]

I have received 3 notice to keeper/hirer each one for £124.00 for parking without a valid permit.

The dates of issue are 15/4/2016,26/04/2016 & 27/04/2016

The letters all dated 15/6/2016 were received on 18/06/2016

 

At the time I was working in one of the shops that backs onto the area shown as St Peters Square, Stockport. The owner said that this is always happening and he just ignores them is this the correct action to take. I have looked at the Protection of Freedom Act and only the first one is outside the 56 days

 

Is there anything else that I am not seeing

[dx100uk]

I have received 3 notice to keeper/hirer each one for £124.00 for parking without a valid permit.

The dates of issue are 15/4/2016,26/04/2016 & 27/04/2016

The letters all dated 15/6/2016 were received on 18/06/2016

 

At the time I was working in one of the shops that backs onto the area shown as St Peters Square, Stockport. The owner said that this is always happening and he just ignores them is this the correct action to take. I have looked at the Protection of Freedom Act and only the first one is outside the 56 days

 

Is there anything else that I am not seeing

 

 

please start a new thread

of your own

[Pastry]

I just thought I'd give you an update on this case.

 

I received a letter from the County Court Business Centre saying that they had received my defence and forwarded it to the claimant on 27 June.

 

I just rang up to check the situation and it seems the claimant (Excel) still had not come back to say they wished to proceed, so the claim has been stayed

 

they will now have to pay for an application to lift it.

 

I guess this means the defence that parking prankster, ericsbrother and others helped me compile has done the trick!

[honeybee13]

That sounds like good news, Pastry.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

Give it a fortnight and ask again to have the claim chucked out with costs as being malicious. Excel have doen the old parking co favourite trick of putting in hundreds of claims and then running away from the defended ones to save money. that it an abouse of process as they are using the courts service as debt collection by intimidation rather than actually showing a reason for their claims. The poor sods who pay up in panic fund all of this.

[Pastry]

Hello

 

I thought this had gone away, but it hasn't.

 

Despite the county court business centre telling me the case had been stayed,

 

I have now received a copy of the 'Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track)' that BW Legal has filed at court.

 

They have ticked the 'Yes' box next to the question

'Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?'

 

Any advice would be very welcome indeed.

 

I have no idea how I'm expected to proceed here ... !

[ericsbrother]

you tick the no box,

they are just hoping that you will pay them something to make the matter go away as they are onto a loser.

 

Check to see if they have paid the allocation fee and if they havent ask the court to throw the case out.

 

There is also a more recent case from the Peel contre about signage on the pranksters blog so use that case as well.

 

 

they know that if you do they cannot justify a claim for something that doesnt hold any water.

 

 

They might get done for a full costs order then.

[Pastry]

It seems they have paid to reinstate the case.

The county court business centre

Says that if I do not agree to mediation it will go to court.

 

 

Looks like I will have to agree.

How should I approach it?

Agree only to pay the normal parking charge that i originally omitted to pay at the machine?

 

you tick the no box,

they are just hoping that you will pay them something to make the matter go away as they are onto a loser.

 

Check to see if they have paid the allocation fee and if they havent ask the court to throw the case out.

 

There is also a more recent case from the Peel contre about signage on the pranksters blog so use that case as well.

 

 

they know that if you do they cannot justify a claim for something that doesnt hold any water.

 

 

They might get done for a full costs order then.

[dx100uk]

you say no to mediation

you want it to goto court

whereby they'll have to prove their case

that's when they normally give in.

 

 

dx