excel/bw claimform - 2011 EPS PCN EBBW VALE **WON + COSTS**

[jcbkabs]

had a letter of BW Legal today in response to cpr31

"We write to the above matter and your recent correspondence. We have requested evidence of the contravention from our client. we will revert to you upon receipt."

 

what should i reply?

[dx100uk]

none

just dont miss your defence filing date

[jcbkabs]

Filed it last night as I'm away for the next 12 days but didn't put in that cpr31 hadn't been answered

[dx100uk]

what did you file?

[Oddfellow]

How come BW Legal need to ask Excel for "evidence of the contravention"? Given that it was BW who issued the claim, they should have some idea, shouldn't they?

 

 

Failure to respond to your CPR31 request wouldn't be part of your initial defence, but will be useful if they haven't sent the documents by the time it gets to court (or just before, when you write to the court to request a strike-out).

[ericsbrother]

you can ask for a strike out at any time using CPR 16.4 and say lack of detail in the particulars of claim to show that the plaintiff has a claim against the defendant and that the CPR31.14 request for strict proof of the defendants' liability in this matter has not been answered.

 

 

You then state that Excel has no prospect of success as the defendant has no liability in this matter.

[jcbkabs]

Had a letter letter this morning from bw legal

 

"We write to reference to the above matter

 

Our clients intends to countinue with the claim.

 

We have filed notice of our clients intention to proceed with court."

 

Still not had a reply to my cpr 31 request?

[Old Cogger]

2011 pcn ebbw vale = ????????????/ 2011?

[jcbkabs]

what did you file?

 

 

The claim is denied.

Although the defendant was the registered keeper at the relevant

time, he was not the driver as previously informed.

The defendant puts the claimant to proof as to the issue of who

was the driver.

The defendant will seek cost of a lost day's work and reasonable

costs of travel

[dx100uk]

so you followed our advise I see...:frusty::frusty:

[jcbkabs]

Yes not had time to do anything else other things are taking up my time which are a little more inportant

[ericsbrother]

The wording is "strict proof" which is a legal term.

 

Sorry buit it really hacks me off when people come here for advice,

we spend hours helping

and then we get a message saying that the OP cant be bothered to do anything about the matter at the moment because they have decided it is of little importance to their lives after all.

 

You are the fifth this week.

I despise the parking companies because they are mostly dishonest in their activites and only get anywhere by making false claims.

 

 

If you failt to follow this through they will have more money and be emboldened to do even worse things.

 

Give them a spanking by actually putting a bit of effort into this and they will lose money and be discouraged from trying it on with someone else.

eventually they will ahve to be honest in their dealings

with their clients and the customers.

 

The claim is denied.

Although the defendant was the registered keeper at the relevant

time, he was not the driver as previously informed.

The defendant puts the claimant to proof as to the issue of who

was the driver.

The defendant will seek cost of a lost day's work and reasonable

costs of travel

[Old Cogger]

Yes not had time to do anything else other things are taking up my time which are a little more inportant

 

then why expect us to waste our time answering and assisting you if you are not serious?

[jcbkabs]

my wife has been amited to hospital I was away working. Her depression had com back and she's done something stupid

[jcbkabs]

hi all

 

 

had a NOTICE OF PROPOSED ALLOCATION arrive today dated 12th/04/17

 

This is a defended claim the defendant has filed a defence

it appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims Track

[dx100uk]

std n180

no to mediation

 

 

I copy to the court sign it

 

one copy to the claimants sols not signed and without email/phone

[jcbkabs]

hi guys had this today what do i do with it

excel20170520_09320964.pdf

[dx100uk]

you need to get a witness statement running.

follow the courts directions for the defendent

[jcbkabs]

What do I need in witness statement?

I still haven't had a response tp my cpr31.14 request back in march?

[Old Cogger]

include your request for cpr 31.14 has not been responded to for a start

[dx100uk]

plenty here already you have till 19th june

 

 

look at the other vcs/exce/bw claim threads In this parking forum

[jcbkabs]

Is this any good to start with for witness statement

 

I've still not received a response to my CPR31.14 request dated 31/03/2017.

All tho I was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged offence I wasn't the driver the veichel was owned by a limited company which had a fire in the building in 2016 and all record lost.

I have previously informed to The claimiant that I wasn't the driver band as them to prove the I'd of the driver

as this dates from 2011 it is outside of the

 

I would also like note that a data protection breach can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over-inflated charge, or both and I believe this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne

[dx100uk]

not really no

but id leave it till nearer the 19th

as they will respond I bet.

 

 

a useful thread to read

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?468154-EXCEL-PCN-2015-Peel-Centre-now-BW-claimform/page6

[jcbkabs]

WITNESS STATEMENT

_________________________ _

 

1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief

 

2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed.

 

3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to th claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which every thing was lost company is now dissolved.

 

4. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. Was this correctly worded?

As In a recent case at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016 the judge made a finding of fact that the Claimant wording does not comply with the mandatory requirements of POFA to invoke keeper liability.

 

 

As Claimant did not adduce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon.

 

5. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred.

 

 

ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

 

 

All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured).

 

 

All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed.

 

6. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course.

 

 

Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

 

 

Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days?

 

 

They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

7. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases.

 

 

One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.

 

 

The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC.

In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly.

 

The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it.

The case was dismissed.

 

8. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN.

 

 

As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant.

 

 

There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day,

e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle.

 

9. The NTK was dated and sent out on 06/01/2012 Which a reply was sent back to claimant informing them registered keeper wasn't the driver at time, thereby NOT complying with POFA paragraph 9 sub (5).

 

 

There is no cause for action against the defendant as there is no keeper liability under the POFA as the claimant failed to follow the protocols of the act to create one.

 

10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter.

 

11. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14 request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf.

 

The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

 

 

I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the devfendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county court, before DJ Osborne.

 

The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.

 

Regards

 

John

[ericsbrother]

your matter predates the POFA so point 4 and point 9 irrelevant.

I would leave out as it will cause confusion at best.

 

You should instead state that as they claim compliance with the POFA

you state this cannot be the case as the law didnt exist at the time

so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true.

 

point 10 should be expanded to say that therefore the claimant has no basis of claim as it is based on an event that didnt occur.

 

also, dont forget to use the signage deficiency and make the point about wrong claimant if the old signs said VCS rather than excel.

 

You need to push for sight of the contract between landowner and EXCEL

and if they dont produce this or show one involving VCS you make the point about no locus standi (lack of standing- right to make a claim).

 

This would be more compelling than all the other points.

I would put this somewhere near the beginning of your WS so the judge forces them to dig out the paperwork or go away.