EXCEL PARKING claimform - Irregular NTD, Improper approach to DVLA and NTK outside of limits.***Claim Discontinued***

[ericsbrother]

essentially they havent folowed the POFA so they cannot create a keeper liability.

That doesnt do away with a claim for a breach of contract

but they have to now prove who they have a contract with.

 

What to do?

well, you can wait and see what they do next

( threatogram probably but it might be another NTK if they realise they have screwed up)

 

 

or you can respond and tell them that they havent followed the protocols of the POFA so have no lawful reason to obtain your keeper details and that you will settle this out of court if they pay your £250 as per VCS v Philip (Liverpool dec 2016).

 

 

They wont be paying you but they wont be in a hurry to see the inside of a court

[ericsbrother]

whatever you do, dont phone them or email them. No filling out their website appeal either, it will just lead to more harassment

[ericsbrother]

I would let the matter become timed out,

if they think they ahve got it right they wont be resending NTK, just reminders.

 

 

As you have the original ticket and NTK they cant suddenly decide it wasnt the NTK after all but then again I havent come across a parking co that is honest and fair.

[ericsbrother]

not yet, you wait until the 56 days has expired and then tell them they are crap at their job.

[ericsbrother]

That is the biggest pile of horse **** I have ever seen.

 

 

The DVLA are now just mouthpieces for parking companies that dont want to obey the law.

 

Excel cant introduce their own system,

they either follow parsa 5 and 8 of the POFA or 6 and 9.

 

 

I cant understand why we employ civil servants who take it upon themselves to not only excuse the criminal behaviour of parking companies but act as their mouthpiece when doing so.

[ericsbrother]

Like on street parking with local council CEO's they can use photographic evidence, or even a sworn statement that the parking event was witnessed and that is enough.

 

 

For council CEO's they can claim their personal safety considerations meant they didnt have to affix a ticket to the car.

The law refers to approved devices when there arent actually any ANPR cameras that are approved so it is really what is considered fit for purpose.

 

 

In EXCEL's case a man with a colouring book and some pencils is probably an approved device,

after all, they are never wrong, it is always someone else's fault their machines dont work etc.

 

Let us be clear as to why this has come about,

 

 

Simon Renshaw-Smith doesnt like the POFA a

s like fellow IPC members it causes problems for them

and their poor attempts at joined up writing

and therefore made a decision not to use it when pursuing motorists (or keepers).

 

 

However, this comes unstuck when people defend themselves and so another attempt to cretae a method that allows them the advantages of the POFA but none of the disadvantages, like having to produce some evidence.

 

 

Excel were the origianl exponents of the "disappearing ticket" wheeze and the altering of their camera clocks to make claims that were never justifiable. If these were as isolated as Simple Simon says why not use the law as it stands properly?

[ericsbrother]

the other reason the DVLA trot out their bull, they know that they could be in trouble with the ICO for allowing these bandits to misuse the KADOE system because it earns the bosses of the DVLA a brucie bonus

[ericsbrother]

as the prescribed fee wasnt paid and the driver left then there was no contract to breach.

 

 

If you follow the path of offer,

consideration and acceptance you will see that the supposed brech of conditons didnt occur and therefore nothing is owed to the parking co.

 

 

Most of the discussion here is looking at the behaviour of this company that is a bit of a tangent to the main purpose of the thread because we are incredulous at the behaviour of the DVLA more than anything.

 

So to cover the main points of Excel's actions so far

- the NTD isnt one as it fails to have the relevant information.

 

 

The NTK isnt POFA compliant whether using paras 8 or 9 as the driving force behind it and anyway as a contract is only formed when the driver accepts the conditions expressed on the machine and puts the money in to confirm ACCEPTANCE the contract is made. you cant be sued for window shopping.

[ericsbrother]

no, not the hand held devices but their dodgy systems at the Peel centre amongst others where they run them wrong on purpose ansd still expect punters to be happy to pay up. The IAS uphold this in their kangaroo court

[ericsbrother]

so the DVLA now do what a pair of bandits tell them to do rather than obeying the law. report this to your MP and ask then to speak to the Transport Minister about this. I would also be telling Alex Shipp ( parking prankster) about this via his contact page on his web site (not blog) He sits on an advisory committee that deals with such things, although the panel is heavily weighted in favour ofunfettered money grabbing rather than application of the law, his voice does carry some clout.

[ericsbrother]

Can yu pst up the particulars of claim so we can try and fathom out why they thik you owe them money. It will undoubtedly be the usual vague nonsense. you will need to acknowledge the claim but dont fill out anything about a defence yet,  we will help you with that when we have a little more information and you will have a total of 33 days to file that if you get the AOS done pronto.

 

Once that is done you send Excel or their solicitors a CPR31.14 request for documents asking for sight of the contract between themselves and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name Also ask for copies of the planning permissions granted for their sugnage and equipment at the site ( parking meters need different planning consent to the signs so 2 PP's references needed) Give them14 days to respond and when they dont you make use of this in your outline defence along with rubbishing their POC

 

After that we need to see the signs at the car park in question and also pictures of the payment meter and associated blurb. Pictures of the entrance from the public highway regardless of whether there are signs there or not as well please. Pictures of all signs that are different, we need to be able to read the small print. Also whilst you are there you need to do a sketch of where the signs are, how big they are and whetehr there is anything obscuring them like trees or wheelie bins.

 

Also make a note of whether they are lit by lamps above them etc

[ericsbrother]

post up what you want to say and we will advise whether to add anything about their procedural cock-ups,

they havent said in what capacity they are suing you and whether this is for a breach of contract or for monies due under a contract

 

as they say they are recovering monies from a charge notice and that then means they are claiming what?

£100 as that was the sum on the notice (if it existed) or NTK (POFA limits any demand then) but doesn't mention any so called contractual collection or administration fees so where does the £160 come from in law?.

 

Now you can mention all of this in a tidied up version as part of your defence to refute excel having a cause for action in the first place but you dont want this to be the only string to your bow.

 

You could also force the into paying more money by not saying why there was no contract (to breach) and hit them with a barrage of points at the exchange of documents stage as the vagure defence will encourage them to think they have a chance but you may prefer that they understand you have a lot of ammo and try and get them to drop the claim and skulk away sooner than that stage.

 

It is normal to send a copy of the defence to the claimant but if you file online then that nicety is waived.

Referring to the above you might want them to know now that you arent going to pay up so encouraging them to drop it.

Simple Simon is notoriously greedy and stubborn so it is a toss up which strategy to use

[ericsbrother]

Ok so do you want to have a pop at their POC along with this or leave that for the WS as well?

In the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter as filing a defence puts you in a minority position of about 15% of those who are sued so it might be enough to make them look at the stats for taking it further and their chances of winning (slim).

[ericsbrother]

then you need to say that

 

1. the particulars of claim do not make it clear in what capacity the defendant s being sued, if as the driver then it is put to strict proof the defendant was indeed driving at the time.

 

If the claimant is relying on suing the defendant for having  keeper liability then the defendant denies such a liability has been created because of the failures of the claimant to create one under the POFA 2012.

 

2. Further to this the POFA limits the amount that can be claimed from the keeper to the amount claimed on the Notice to Keeper and so all of the other charges that may or may not have been mentioned on the signage at the land are not permitted under the POFA.

 

3.The claimant does not show a cause for action,  they state that it is for a parking charge but do not say whether this is a contractual sum or damages for a breach of contract.

 

The defendant denies being the driver at the time and the claim states specifically that it is the driver who is liable so all liability is denied and the defendant requests that the claim is stuck out under CPR 3.3,  16.2 and 16.4

 

you are inviting the court to use its managemnt powers to boot this out or make the claimant write it all out again.

Unfortunatley it is rare for all of this to be read and acted upon before it gets further down the line but always worth a go.

[ericsbrother]

dont forget, this is in addition to your 2 lines already scribed

[ericsbrother]

so what have you done in the last 4 months? post up what you have and we can help edit

[ericsbrother]

couple of quick points

 

Dark winters night- anything else you remember about the weather, ie raining, cold etc. all helps show that sigange can easily be missed, misread etc if no lighting there so try and link the lack of illumination if possible at point 29 and link the 2 points.

 

point 30. state that the sign is an "invitation to treat"  and not an offer of a contract and refer to a similar case that can be found on the Parking Pranksters blog( copy case report to bundle)

 

link this to point 34 and say that the motorist is not compelled to accept the contract as they have already been intited to park without any conditions attached to that act, merely an invite to consider soemthing that is as yet unseen.

 

point 38 also say that it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact so conditions on signage are immaterial as no contract can be formed

 

point 49 -51 should be one point rather than 3, they dont really stand alone except the last one

 

52 and 53 you can invite the judge to dismiss without a hearing using its management powers under CPR3.4(2) on the grounds that they have failed to show a proper cause for action

 

the do as andyorch says, sign it of as a statement of truth dated the......

 

 just spreading it on a bit thicker

 

[ericsbrother]

 re pranksters blog- you will have to look back through all of ther posts I'm afraid. you could try a keyword search of the cases library on his web page as well

I didnt say it was recent so you will need to spand a bit of time on this. If you find more than one case the even better but use the keywords "invitation to treat" and you should find it