Jump to content


Excel/BW claimforn - PCN 31/03/2015- land since redeveloped - 468 Bury New Road, Prestwich , manchester **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2522 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

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes for gods sake pull your finger out of your backside and do something.

 

 

We offfer advice,

we are not oracles or mindreaders and we cant come and hold your hand or force you to hand over paperwork.

 

Fax the witness statement to BWL and post to court if you dont have their fax no.

 

If you dont know what to put pick out all of the relevant things from the last 2 months worth of posts here as many cover court cases.

 

 

Even if you arent sure they are relevant use them as they can easily be ignored but if you dont put it you anat use it.

 

 

So

start with lack of authority,

lack of planning permission for signage

, no contractual obligation,

not POFA compliant so no cause for action against the defendant

sigange inadequate due to size, poor lighting, spacing height etc.

 

 

This is important if there are no signs at entrance and they rely on signs scattered about the car park.

You will need pictures but you were told that already

 

signage is prohibitive

signage is an unfair contract as the terms are punitive in nature rather than designed to control parking

and therefore not a genuine offer of a contract for parking

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

All done and Sent both off today

 

Mainly covering all points you mentioned ,

referring to previous cases so that's pretty comprehensive.

 

 

Do you get to argue or elaborate on your defence in court or do you just await the findings ?

In other words would I be able to clarify my arguments for illegal signage by adding extra weight via further supplementary information that came to light after submitting the defence,

e.g. The landlord sends a response email confirming no contract was still in force etc

 

I noticed this week that excel parking services have been kicked off the parking site and all signs removed and replaced with parking eye and APNR cameras , also a lower penalty charge if £75?

 

I mentioned this in my argument - can they still prosecute if no longer agents for the landowner ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no,

you have to turn up and argue the points so make sure that you take copies of all of the cases you have mentioned

(ie where the summary is online you print off that page)

 

 

you take a copy of the POFA,

you take the pctures of the signs,

anything you havent elready submitted but mentioned.

 

As for the last point,

of course they can ,

you have been sued havent you?

 

 

What goes on today has no bearing on what was done yesterday.

You are not being prosecuted, that is a criminal matter, this is civil.

 

 

They are claiming you owe them money and want a judge to agree.

You are saying you dont because.

.. and want a judge to agree. you could ask for trial by combat but I doubt if the judge will agree to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I post their WS , and mine will they see it and will your replies be accessed by BWL , giving them your responses ? Should this not be uploaded privately which I can do and I assume it needs to be redacted ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

stop being paranoid,

it is all public domain information when it comes to court.

 

 

Anyone in the world is entitled to turn up and watch so hiding it now just hinders you and helps them.

 

 

You wont get any help if you dont so think about that and worry about what you have to do rather than worry about what they have done.

 

 

Most parking co WS are generic rubbish anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is the Claimants WS and also attached is a document they just sent me although I had asked for this in september and they refused

- as contract evidence to act on behalf of landlord signed after the offence date?

 

but refers to a pre-dated agreement?

Not sure this stands up?

 

sorry the scan has reversed the page order so first page is at the back then come forward.

 

I also just read this interesting article on Parking Prankster and think it may be worth bringing the case along?

 

 

MIL V Mrs C, C3QZ9V18 17/1/17 Burnley County Court. DJ Jonathan JamesT

 

his has significant ramifications for all LPC law, SCS, BW Legal, Wright Hassall and Elms represented cases, as the majority of such advocates have no personal right of audience.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/mil-burned-in-burnley-no-right-of.html

 

Thanks for all your help

- sorry if I come across as green ,

but first time for everything and total novice but getting confident now

 

I think i could win .

 

 

 

  • All photos on signage they have included in their statement as evidence is time stamped August 2015?
  • Signage on walls is mixed with private vendors personal signs showing "staff only" - confusing but as shops were all closed could this be justification for being confused.
  • Never saw any signs as hidden in dark , not illuminated and hidden in corner.
  • Signage is 1.3sq metres approx - no planning consent for signs being erected.
  • Council planning say carpark doesn't need planning as old established car park.
  • Cannot see if POFA was not followed correctly as does look ok.

 

B-W- L were not the first instructed

- excel firstly instructed debt collectors Rossendales Collect for year or which I ignored as they kept referring to a debt?

 

They added £30 of fees on to start with!

they sent me a letter every 2 weeks and constantly threatened with bailiffs/ potential field visit/ .

 

their first letter says that the debt has been passed to the "above client "(18th June 2015)

- they call themselves in the letter Professional Debt Collectors and added £30 on which is in the final claim?

Notice to Keepe-rdriver.pdf

Excel WS.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, staff only means just that.

No-one else is allowed to park and that is not a contractual matter, it is a prohibition.

You cant agree to trespass so they cant demand money from you.

 

 

However, as you have spent the last 7 months sitting on your backside ignoring this you will be hard pushed to introduce this fact that utterly destroys their claim as they know if you do they are done for.

 

send an additional document stating this and also that in any case the signage stated a sum of £whatever and that all the added on fees are unenforceable as they have not been advertised as a contractual condition to the defendant as the keeper of the vehicle (unfair contracts law-look up exact bit and aalso the bit about distance seeling regs as the keeper is nott here to read the sign so that applies as well) to the court (copy to BWL) and hope that it is accepted.

 

As for the POFA you need to read and understand every word of it, it is all very well us telling you that their notices are not compliant and why but if you dont understand the wording of the POFA you cant argue the detail when they say that it does apply.

 

 

Generall they dont rely on POFA and calim that the driver and keepr are the same as per Elliot v Loake when that doesnt apply as otherevidence was there and in your case nothing to suggest the parking co have any other proof.

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information thats helpful I have just had an email from the planning officer who has eventually confirmed that in his "own opinion" not that of the councils' that planning permission should have been acquired, although the signs are no longer there so he cannot enforce any action.

 

extract : " In the circumstances you have described I would say yes advertisement consent was required for the signs. This is however my own opinion and not that of the Council. I suggest you take some professional legal advice from a firm that specialises in planning law to assist your case.

 

Yours sincerely,"

 

also I have not sat and done nothing for the last 7 months - I have been following the advice in threads and sent replies to BWL , and then waited for a reply as per the advice , but they have taken it to court which is a surprise but lets see what happens - as i see it i have to pay them £238 now or go to court , lose and still pay £238 in court (maybe less), so I may as well have my day in court!-

Link to post
Share on other sites

re the pranksters latest blog about rights of audience in courts.

That may well win the day on its own.

 

 

Also look at a thread that today ended up in a loss for the defendant.

The judge didnt know the law ( they were only a DDJ, a local solicitor working part time usually) and found for the claimant.

 

 

There are things to learn from this as far as what you need to press as points

as well as tying up everything that you can so copies of page 40 of the Beavis decision,

copy of the POFA etc, anything you may want to refer to.

 

However,

as the council bod has said PP is needed and they didnt have it make that point.

 

 

You will need to read up on why deemed consent doesnt apply

( it is the type of sign that decides and theirs dont fit into the deemed consent bracket)

 

 

but as can be seen in a couple of the failures we have had reported back there is little you can do in the face of a judge who has decided to follow a path that leads them to the wrong place

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No-one else is allowed to park and that is not a contractual matter, it is a prohibition.

You cant agree to trespass so they cant demand money from you. "

 

can you elaborate?

i assume you mean if i agree to their terms

- by parking in a space then I am entering a contract with them,

but if i park in a prohibited space i am trespassing,

- so are you saying i can't therefore agree to park and trespass ?

i'm a little confused on the interpretation.

 

just read up on rights of audience and the claimants witness statement says the representative is a litigation paralegal employed by BW Legal

- so probably within the rules, as "employed".

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if you want to take that approach rather than use every bit of ammunition you have it is up to you.

 

 

Personally I would push the point.

They arent employed by BWL,

they send a local solicitor so you had better ask them who they are and where they are from

 

As for trespass, what do you think it means.

it means that you have not been invited or have no right to be there.

 

 

A contract requires an INVITATION to consider and then ACCEPT the terms offered.

 

 

Judges dont like peopel just telling them they are trespassing because they couldnt be bothered to read the signs but where the signage is inadequate confusing or prohibitive then no contract formed

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays result in court

 

Excel Parking Services Ltd 0 Versus Booth 1:lol:

 

I won !...

 

Thanks for all the help on here especially Ericsbro and Dx who have been quick to reply and patient with my questions .

 

The claim was not attended by the claimant just a local solicitor / advocate

she wasn't that well prepared and had lots of use files for the day. When the Judge asked her to refer to photo I had provided of poor signage - she used her phone! she hadn't even printed off my defence?

 

I admitted that I never bought a ticket - but on the basis that i never saw any signage in the first place that asked me to buy a ticket so no contract was entered into.

 

The claimant only claimed a breach of contract.

  • - They provided pictures of the signage, date stamped for August 2015 (offence was March 2015?),
  • Provided at last minute a witness statement from the landowner stating he gave authority (also date stamped - September 15)
    The PCN they sent in their Witness statement - was a photocopy and completely blurred and illegible

 

I provided 3 main points in the end and when i get a transcript ill post it up.

 

1. Poor signage - there were "staff only " parking signs on the building wall next to where i parked - i questioned the claimants right to sue someone parked against these bays?

 

2. I asked under a CPR 31.14 back in september for a copy of their contract and authority to act on behalf of the landlord and a copy of parking planning consent (ericsbro idea)- which they had refused to supply. - This went against them as they couldn't provide proof if they could act on behalf of the leaseholder in bringing a claim "staff only" ? ...Judge :"did they have a contract which said these bays were exempt or not exempt from Excel issuing tickets on the vehicles parked? " - Solicitor couldn't confirm - no contract!... shame..

 

3. planning consent (read up on the advertisers guide to planning rules), also had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent. Also that there was no planning application on file? - The judge said - If i had only brought this point up he may have found differently.

 

I don't think he needed it, he clearly had doubts about the signs where any reasonable person would think the same and "staff only" would not lead them to think there was a requirement to buy a ticket?

 

 

Took a recess for 10 mins then made a judgement: Claim refused - parking signs cause confusion , no contract proof, he went on to state that he was staggered that serial claims companies like these do not take a photo of the signs they then use to prosecute with at the time of erection? Why do they wait until litigation to take photos. There was no evidence that the signs were there at all on the date.

 

 

The only thing I am sorry about is that I forgot to mention costs of my own - he never asked me if there were any?.... and I was too excited and trying my best not to grin former to ear that i forgot to ask! .... no bother!

 

One last thing- I want to change the title if i can of the thread as I originally (total novice) put the wrong address (town) in the thread title - It is Prestwich Manchester , not RADCLIFFE. I Was trying to avoid being caught out seeking help by BWL!!!..who i thought could track my questions. silly but it may help others who have similar problems on the same car park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can now sue Excel for unlawfully obtaining your data,

see the pranksters blog regarding VCS v Philip at Liverpool, dec 2016.

 

 

Davey v UKPCS would probably only partially apply,

that was parking on his own land and harassment by multiple tickets and court claim so the threshold for action is much higher.

 

Glad that it all went well for you,

judges differ in how they run things and what they will and wont accept.

 

 

As no-one from Excel present she had no right to speak, only present papers and that would have killed the WS of the supposed landowner as they werent there either!

 

 

If you get into another of these you could use this experience to hone your skills and get the by the throat before they have a chance to speak

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Karbot

 

Congrats on your win!! I'm new on here and cant send you a PM

 

Wondering if you can help me with a ticket I've got from the same carpark?

 

It would be very helpful if I could use your photos. I am hoping to use illegal signage, excel had no authority and no contract was formed

 

I would be so grateful if you could help me out xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

how is your defence shaping up tracey?

 

let us know in your own thread what you have done so far and what you think you can learn from here.

 

Chances are it will be the same judge so get the claim details and quote them along with the outcome.

 

That will save the judge a bit of time and effort if they belive it is the same circumstance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

might be best to update your own thread eh lilly?

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

you havet goy a hearing, you have a set aside which is very different. You must read the posts you get very carefully nad fully understand what is being said so you dontexpect something different to what is going to happen.

 

Hi Tracey

 

How did you go in court? I've got a hearing next Friday so any help appreciated? Do u have any photos of signs etc? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

you havet goy a hearing, you have a set aside which is very different. You must read the posts you get very carefully nad fully understand what is being said so you dontexpect something different to what is going to happen.

Hi

Just in case they do decide to do the hearing on the same day though, as told they could do

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep to your thread!!

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Excel/BW claimforn - PCN 31/03/2015- land since redeveloped - 468 Bury New Road, Prestwich , manchester **WON**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...