Excel Parking/BW Legal Form N180 *** Discontinued ***

[J English]

Good morning, I'm new to this type of issue and using the internet for advise but its getting a bit serious now and I dont want to pay a charge if I genuinely am not at fault.

 

I found this forum after browsing the net and a case you successfully won last year against the same company and in the same car park. Details below.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?476097-Excel-BW-claimform-PCN-cavendish-retail-park-in-keighley-on-10-04-2014-**Discontinued-Costs**/page4

 

I have already filed a defence with the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and I have just received a letter from BW Legal stating they will persue the claim. Friday form N180 arrived.

 

These are the facts of the case:

 

Claimant Excel Parking Services Ltd

 

They are claiming 271.36

 

PCN charge £100

Interest £42.36

Other cost £54.00 contractual costs pursuant to PCN T and C.

Court fee £25.00

Legal Rep £50.00

 

This dates back to April 2012

 

It has always been stated that the defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged incident.

This was made clear to them in May, 2012.

No other correspondants have been sent or made with Excel or any other third party.

 

I'm not sure what else to put in so I'll wait for further instructions

[AndyOrch]

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

 

I have moved your thread to the appropriate forum..please continue to post here to your thread.

 

DQ N180 must filed and served by the date stated.....simple to complete.

 

Yes to Small Claims Track

No to mediation

State your local County Court

1 witness to the facts ...you

 

Run 3 copies...Court/ Claimants Solicitor/ and file.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406099-LEGAL-N180-Directions-Questionnaire-(Small-Claims-Track)-**Correct-at-Sept-2016**

 

Andy

[ericsbrother]

right,

in your opening post there is reference to a date in april 2014 yet later you mention april 2012.

Now if the latter is correct and not the former thewn there is no keeper liability because the POFA wasnt enacted to create such a thing until oct that year.

 

What did you put in your defence? Knowing that will help us tailor our responses.

Also there are procedural things they have got wrong so that if argued will reduce any claim back to the £100 as the £54 costs arent allowable but they hope you dont know this or they get them by default/admission of debt /not telling the truth to the court.

 

Tell us about the event itself and what evidene you have to help you with your defence.

Do you still have the original paperwork?

Can you get copies of the signage there currently and then they can be compared with what thy claim were there at the time.

 

Now, Excel werent members of the IPC at that time.

The IPC changes its name in 2016 so again the signage they produce should have the old name on or it is just a forgery and perjurous behaviour.

Get what you can posted up here so we can help

Edited March 5, 2018 by DragonFly1967
Paragraphs added

[DragonFly1967]

Anyone for a toothbrush?

 

Excel could be about to really land themselves in it here if the 2012 date is correct. Oh, I so hope it is

[J English]

Good morning,

 

The event took place in APRIL 2012.

I dont have any photos of the area but I do have all the paper work.

All the signage has now been changed to another car parking company.

It looks like the retailers have had enough of excel considering all the bad publicity generated in the area.

 

The original paperwork was sent late (If they had 14 days to serve notice) arrived after 20 days.

Its issued to the driver and the '' Full charge '' was £60 .

It only changed to £100 when they added court costs and now they have added court costs again !!!

 

The photo on the PCN shows the number plate but no clear picture of the driver and they have never produced any evidence.

Its so long ago now we have no or very little recollection of the incident.

I have a feeling they have sent it to small claims so its just inside the 6 year allowance.

 

Below was my defence and have I said too much ?

 

quote

 

The defendant responded to Excel Parking in May 2012 stating she was not driving the car, therefore she is not responsible for this PCN.

 

The requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act were not satisfied because the notice to keeper was not delivered to the keeper within the prescribed timescale. The registered keeper cannot therefore be held liable to the parking charge.

As the operator has neither named the driver(s) or provided any evidence who the driver(s) were the charge is not enforceable."

 

It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are wed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The date of the alleged incident is 09/04/1012 as per the particulars of claim which is nealy 6 years ago.

 

I am perpelexed as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings.

 

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable.

 

From the limited information provided by the particulars of claim, it can be seen the date of the alleged incident is 09/04/2012 which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced.

 

This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity.

Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.

 

PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability,

"There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

 

The Claimant solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.

 

HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

 

I believe the term for such conduct is 'robo-claims' which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on represented consumers.

 

I have reason to believe that this claim will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

 

I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

 

It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

 

It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

 

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

 

As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

unquote

Edited April 19, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[DragonFly1967]

You've muddled it up slightly, but not enough to matter I think.

 

Regarding POFA, all you should really have said is that the incident predates the enactment of POFA in October 2012, and therefore the keeper cannot be liable. But you've covered that later so it's no big deal.

 

Nicely done on Elliot v Loake! Gladrags & BWL love that one, though I've no idea why, they've been spanked so many times on that matter. They're clearly just too stupid for it to sink in.

 

If this does end up in court, I'd go for full costs including the LiP rate of 5 hours @£19 per hour, and (as per VCS v Phillip) a counterclaim for their breach of the DPA. Any expenses incurred on the day, including travel & parking (the Judge will like the irony), any lost wages and anything else that you've spent money on to defend this case.

 

The beers will be on you at the end of it. Excel don't stand a chance.

[J English]

I just want to clear one point up.

 

The PCN was issued to the registered owner but she was not driving and she will not be attending court. When filling out the N180 should I state me as the expert witness or say no to that and state just 1 witness to the facts ?

 

many thanks

[DragonFly1967]

So who's name is on the claim form from Excel?

[AndyOrch]

She will have to attend as the claim was issued in her name...she is the legal owner...state 2 witness (Defendant and yourself)

 

You are not an expert witness...just a witness

[ericsbrother]

WHOAH, if it is not you being sued then you cant do anything on your own. If she cant attend then she will have to pay for a solicitor to attend and you can go as a witness.

 

Now to point out various things, the paperwork wasnt sent out late as there was no POFA at the time to limit when they send things,

however as there was no keeper laibility then anything they sent was meaningless and can only be damaging to their claim so if you still have it or a copy of it from them as part of a CPR 31.14 request for documents then post it up here so we can advise but generally your missus has a case for suing them under the DPA and for harassment as well ( beware the bar is quite high for the latter).

 

As for their added costs, as you say they are fiction as they ahve no contract with the defendant so cnat add any extras on whether it was in the original contract or not.

 

This is where Dunlop comes into pay as the costs are just an unlawful penalty

Edited March 8, 2018 by Andyorch
Paras

[J English]

on the 28th April we received the following:

 

The original paperwork from Excel Parking was sent to the defendant who was the owner of the vehicle. (as stated was not driving)

 

Under the main address box in blue it states '' liability for this parking charge notice (pcn) lies with the driver of the vehicle.

 

 

On the 17th May - Excel asked for the the drivers details. It also states that if we are not prepared to identify the driver then they will request settlement from the vehicle owner as registered with the DVLA.

 

30th May - They state that we have not identified the driver they would like to bring our attention CPR31.18 and the Norwich Parmacal Procedure. Excel parking services Ltd V Alphabet (GB) Ltd in Leeds District Registry of the high court.

 

In mid June another PCN arrived now the charge is £100 which includes court fees £30 and Solicitors costs £50.

 

 

After that they start with solicotors letters; Roxburghe then Graham White then Rossendale and finally BW Legal.

 

Await further instructions.

 

Many thanks

[AndyOrch]

'' liability for this parking charge notice (pcn) lies with the driver of the vehicle."

 

Sorry but that does not legally wash...you cant serve a court claim on an unnamed person...and they cant serve it on the legal owner as they were not driving

[ericsbrother]

Also they are welcome to try and get a Norwich Parmacal Order if they wish but as your other half isnt a body corporate she isnt obliged to answer any part of it and in any case it it cant be used against bodies that are involved in the action as you cannot make people self-incriminate.

 

If they want to waste thousands of their clients money on this stupidity then let them, it will fall at the first hurdle and the current claim will also get chucked out as they will have failed to show a cause for action against the defendant by their own admission.

 

Now, when you have to send in a defence this should be made very clear from the onset,

ie they need a NPO because they are on a fishing expedition and thus the claim is vex.

 

Another thing is that the original NPO was granted because of wrongdoing by a defendant and the claimant needed to use info held by a third party to prove this (HMRC) these abndits have no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone so it is inappropriate law.

 

Your original defence should have considered this or alternately been so lacking in detail that it would be covered by the basic " no contract ever entered into by defendant with claimant" so you could then wtite a book on the detail later when they had finished messing up their side of things

Edited March 9, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[J English]

Many thanks for all the information you have given so far its very much appreceiated.

 

I have sent off form N180 to all parties.

 

I'll post any correspondence I receive should I be doing anything else at the moment ?

 

regards

[AndyOrch]

No...await the Notice of Allocation with the courts directions (N157)

[J English]

Just back from Hols and found a letter from the local court stating the following:

 

The claimant has until 14th April 4pm to file and serve amended particulars of claim addressing matters required by CPR1998 PD16.7 and the legal basis of the claim shall be struck out.

 

They have filed them arrived 13th and I received a copy post dated 13th April.

 

I have been given 14 days from service to serve on the claimant an amended defence. i.e. 27th April.

 

Its a bit short notice considering I gave them dates when not available.

 

BW Legal have sent 15 pages or so 5 pages setting out their claim the rest copies of the lease to the car park photo copies of the parking notice, signage and parking notice.

 

If you want me to type all the details out i can but they have made some mistakes on the particulars of claim on te first page which I will give you now.

 

1. the PCN for parking contravention which occured on the 28th October 2016 (The contrevention date) - Wrong date

 

2. The claimant does not intend to reply on the registered keeper liability detailed under the protection of freedoms act 2012

 

4. At all material times, the defendant was the registered keeper and / or the driver of the ........... bearing vehicle registration mark ....... - They have the wrong vehicle and VRM.

 

5. The claimant submits that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the contravention date. - Still no evidence.

 

I need to check if its been filed electronically but at the moment all I have is a hand copy.

 

regards

[AndyOrch]

Amended particulars are always manual...not electronically.

 

So you need to submit your amended defence in response....you will have fum here.

 

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

please stop typing important letters etc out

 

scan them to pdf and UPLOAD them here.

 

if its a multipage document, scan to ONE multipage PDF.

 

read UPLOAD

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

they cant offer any evidence of who was driving and as they say they dont rely on the POFA they are stuck and so rely on you making their case for them.

 

so rebutting their points is fairly straightforward and esp point 4 as it still misses the point of the POFA so you need to point out why they have failed on this and that there is NO keeper liability and you put it to them to provide STRICT PROOF as to who was driving at the time.

 

they are hoping that you and the judge miss these points or the judge decides that as they have written and/or they get away with it.

You need to dig out other cases where the judge has been persuaded that the POFA needs every bit right or they get nothing.

 

There is a recent on on the parkingpranksters blog so copy it for your detailed defence and read up on similar cases reported on his blog and copy those as well.

the case number etc is important, probably more so than the exact detail but I would lay it on with a trowel.

For the momet just saying they are wrong as per parking co v bloggs 2018 will suffice, you produce the court report later as said

Edited April 20, 2018 by honeybee13
Paas

[J English]

Ok I'll put something together and take a look at parkingpranksters blog.

As you have pointed out its not been filed electronically.

Do you need to see all the paperwork from BW Legal ? (I dont have a scanner)

they have made so many mistakes If I was a judge I would just through it out I cant see they have a case.

[ericsbrother]

keep an eye on the clock, getting your points across now will hurt them as tey may well get told they have filed to show a cause for action and the whole thing is thrown out summariliy.

[J English]

I'm putting a defence together now but Im having problems. How can I defend this claim if the dates, vehicle and registration are all wrong ?

Surely I just say non of these details are correct and there is no case to answer. What am I defending ?

[dx100uk]

read upload

you don't need a scanner

[ericsbrother]

have you checked to see what the amended POC's are?

have they actually filed them with the court.

If they havent the whole thing is over and done with.

ASK the court before you do anything else.

 

Do this my tomorrow and then we can help you once we know what these bandits are now saying.

 

again, you dont need to write a book at this juncture, just somehting that points out the paucity of their claim.

we have standard phrases we use so get the gen on whether they have complaied with the order and we can put some words together.

 

The keeper may well not be going to court after all but work on the theory that excel are very stupid and dont know when to stop.

Even gladdys were glad to see the back of them when they took their business to BWL

Edited April 23, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[J English]

I checked on Friday they have filed them with the court but I didnt ask about the details I am presuming its the same as mine.

 

The only thing that relates to the case is a picture of the correct vehicle / number plate.

 

Still no evidence in the picture of the driver

the last photocopy in the pack is a letter sent to another party relating to another case. Its a complete shambles.

 

My guess is they only had 7 days so they through something together very quickly and got all the docs / details mixed up.

 

How can I reply ?