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

[Pastry]

Okay, thanks 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

[Pastry]

Hello all

 

I said 'no' to mediation and have now received a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' which states that the claim has 'been transferred to (my local) County Court Hearing Centre for allocation'.

I guess this means I am going to court.

 

If anybody would like to give me some advice on how to prepare, I'd be very grateful.

 

 

Also, any ideas for my defence would be good.

I think we can safely assume that ExCel and BW Legal monitor this site for any mention of themselves and keep a close eye on conversations like this in order to inform their own actions.

 

 

With that in mind, I think it would be best if any defence ideas are PMd to me

- otherwise they will have a heads-up on what I'll say in court, and can prepare a counter argument to cut me down quickly.

 

 

I will, of course, make any suggestions public after the hearing, for better or worse!

[dx100uk]

Doesn't mean it IS going to court 100%

And its not as a direct result of your refusal of mediation

 

You want to put them to strict proof its forcing their hand

As said in post 54

 

Have you checked they have paid the allocation fee?

An no its not going to be done by pm either

 

Go read other be threads too

 

Have you a date yet?

[ericsbrother]

if they monitored these site properly they would be withdrawing most of their claims as they know they are doomed to fail.

 

The truth is that the parking co's are run by not very bright people and the lawyers dont care about their clients losing because they get paid anyway.

 

When they lose so much custom because they havent won a defended claim they might start to consider the merits of the cases they push but as it is a numbers game

-75% of people getting a claim pay up without an argument

- they can continue because the inflated costs improperly added to the claim pay for the ones they lose and still produce a profit.

 

as for your defence,

have you done your homework yet on whether the signager is visible and have the photos, measurements etc to support your defence and got a response from the council about planning permission?

 

There are 3 other Peel Centre cliam with threads here so you can at least read each others offerings and use the same arguments.

If the first up wins the others can quote that and ask for it to be used as a precedent.

 

Talk to each other rather than asking us to do everything.

Tell us what you plan and we will comment where we can

[Pastry]

Okay, thanks.

 

Just one more question I'm afraid ...

 

are the other three threads you mention all going to court,

and if so, how do I find them?

 

When you search the CAG site for Peel centre claims there are many, many threads with hundreds of posts.

 

Trawling through them all to find the ones that have got as far as court could take a while so if you have specific ones in mind I'd be really grateful if you could you point me in their direction.

[dx100uk]

copy and paste your thread title into the search cag box

of the top red toolbar minus your date

[Lt.Columbo]

Okay, thanks.

 

Just one more question I'm afraid ...

 

 

are the other three threads you mention all going to court,

and if so, how do I find them?

 

 

When you search the CAG site for Peel centre claims there are many, many threads with hundreds of posts.

 

 

Trawling through them all to find the ones that have got as far as court could take a while so if you have specific ones in mind I'd be really grateful if you could you point me in their direction.

 

Hi,

 

I am at similar stage to you. I am probably going to submit my defence today. Here is my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?464544-Excel-BW-claimform-PCN-18-04-2015-peel-centre-in-Stockport(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

The other thread at same stage too http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?442660-Excel-BW-peel-centre-Stockport-PCN-23-2-15-now-claimform-help(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

Not sure why no one pointed you to them directly.

 

Good luck

[ericsbrother]

they are all on the first page of the private parking threads so self-evident. No need to do a search, just read the thread titles.

[Pastry]

Thanks very much Lt Colombo. And good luck with your little battle.

[Pastry]

Hello all. A quick update.

 

 

As per Ericsbrother's advice,

I have been trying to find out if Excel have planning permission for the signage at the Peel Centre.

 

 

It seems many other people have requested similar information from the Planning Dept, and they have 'launched an investigation' into the matter.

 

 

I asked to be kept in the loop on how this progressed, and was sent an email which made the following points:

 

" ... not all development requires planning permission. Certain house extensions and small buildings are allowed without it being necessary to make a planning application. This is also true of some “change of use”. I can provide further information about this point if it would be helpful to you.

 

"Secondly, failure to apply for planning permission is not in itself an offence.

The Planning Authority must first attempt to resolve any breach by negotiation including the submission of retrospective planning applications where applicable.

If this fails it can issue an Enforcement Notice and allow a period for compliance with the requirements of that Notice.

Failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice, subject to the right of appeal, is a criminal offence.

The procedures involved from initial investigation can take a considerable time.

 

 

Planning Enforcement Officers are not empowered to order unauthorised development to be stopped except in certain strictly controlled circumstances."

 

This suggests to me that, even if it transpires Excel did not have planning permission, this may not be the silver bullet we hoped it might be...

[Oddfellow]

The way the Planning Authority responds to a breach in respect of any guidance that they may receive is neither here nor there.

 

Section 224 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 states:

"Without prejudice to any provisions included in such regulations by virtue of subsection (1) or (2),

if any person displays an advertisement in contravention of the regulations he shall be guilty of an offence".

 

That is an absolute duty.

 

 

It doesn't say

"if any person displays an advertisement, then doesn't take it down when asked to by the Planning Authority, and doesn't apply for retrospective planning permission, he shall be guilty of an offence"!

[ericsbrother]

like parking on double yellows and murder, it is an absolute offence.

 

What a council does to enforce the law is up to them

 

but no-one can say that they dont need to apply,

 

same as they cant argue murder is OK if it is on private property.

[Oddfellow]

"It is against the law to smoke in this building" at my local. Apparently everything else is fine!!!

[Pastry]

Hello all

 

Quick update ... I had my day in court today. And lost.

 

 

The defence I submitted is below, and it was rejected on all counts.

 

 

The one concession I did get was when they tried to get money off me for the debt collection agency Excel had used to send me threatening letters early on.

 

 

Their solicitor could not provide any evidence of this money being paid,

so the judge said I could not be expected to pay it.

All in, I now have to pay£203.50

 

My defence:

 

1. The claim is denied in its entirety for the following reasons:

 

a. As per Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011, the signage at the Peel Centre is particularly poor and although there are several signs these are arranged to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not apparent to motorists. There can therefore be no contract through performance.

 

b. The contract fails information requirements for distance contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. As per the Act, any contract is not binding on the consumer.

 

c. The claimant acts as agent for the Peel Centre, collecting monies on their behalf, but does not assume the risk. As per Fairlie v Fenton, they have no standing to bring any claim.

 

d. The case of ParkingEye v Beavis in the Supreme Court established that the penalty laws are in play, but that in that specific car park the signage was sufficient to allow the motorist to make an informed decision. In this car park, the signage is of such poor quality that the charge of £100 is a penalty and an unfair consumer term.

 

e. The alleged contravention is not listed on the signage.

 

2. Additionally, any monies over the £100 are not allowed by the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and are an attempt to artificially boost the claim in an attempt to get around the costs limits in small claims cases.

 

1. The claim is denied in its entirety for the following reasons:

 

a. As per Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011, the signage at the Peel Centre is particularly poor and although there are several signs these are arranged to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not apparent to motorists. There can therefore be no contract through performance.

 

b. The contract fails information requirements for distance contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. As per the Act, any contract is not binding on the consumer.

 

c. The claimant acts as agent for the Peel Centre, collecting monies on their behalf, but does not assume the risk. As per Fairlie v Fenton, they have no standing to bring any claim.

 

d. The case of ParkingEye v Beavis in the Supreme Court established that the penalty laws are in play, but that in that specific car park the signage was sufficient to allow the motorist to make an informed decision. In this car park, the signage is of such poor quality that the charge of £100 is a penalty and an unfair consumer term.

 

e. The alleged contravention is not listed on the signage.

 

2. Additionally, any monies over the £100 are not allowed by the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 and are an attempt to artificially boost the claim in an attempt to get around the costs limits in small claims cases.

[dx100uk]

well sadly you didn't post up you defence before you filed it..

 

 

dx

[Pastry]

Ahh, dx100uk I was expecting a useless, condescending reply from you - I just didn’t expect it so quickly!

[dx100uk]

we cant help if we don't know what cow pats you have already walked in...

no good taking it out on us..

 

 

if you had posted up your defence here first

p'haps your loss could have been avoided...

[ericsbrother]

Excel had already lost a claim regarding the Peel centre this week.

As you said the alleged contravention was not on the signage did you take photographs to show this or rely on just that phrase?

 

There are so many claims arising from this car park it is clear that there are lots of things wrong such as poorly placed signs, the ticket machines are faulty etc, why did not mention these and quote the case reference numbers and precis to support your defence.

 

You mention Cutts but ther are more recent cases that are more relevant as Excel changed their signage after that case.

Edited December 6, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[ericsbrother]

we never like to see a parking co winning a claim against a motorist under conditions such as this. They take no risk whatsoever and thei outlay is minimal, the cameras they use are only a couple of hundred quid a pair becasue they are basically useless but Trev needs to win a few contested claims or the bubble will burst and then the parking co's wont be able to enforce their punitive conditions because of a lack of enforcement ability in the past.