Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 car park 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. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. 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. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2703 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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

copy and paste your thread title into the search cag box

of the top red toolbar minus your date

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...