OK thanks for that.
I have no prior correspondence with EXCEL and therefore have not admitted being the driver.
As it happens, I wasn't.
They have not responded to my initial request for documents and therefore I have no details on planning permission.
I guess I'll assume and assert that they haven't in the absence of them providing proof to the contrary.
Meanwhile, I've had a letter from EXCEL offering a reduced payment.
I will attach this.
I'm wondering whether I should ignore the letter or respond.
I will not accept the offer.
Thanks for all responses I’ve been looking at other threads and now feel totally confused as I’m scared of actually having to go to court as I have no idea how to defend this! Torn between just setting up a payment plan and not wanting them to win!
Thanks so much!
1. on planning permission my WS says: The signs did not have planning permission under the Town and County planning.
I have an email stating there was no planning permission from the council.
The signs do not fall under deemed consent.
* Their WS says they do not need planning permission by being an approved operator of the trade association, and it is not for the county court to determine planning permission.
2. Excel are trying to say I’m dishonest.
Their WS states my defence appears to be cut and pasted from websites relating to parking whose aim is to assist motorists on contesting PCN's. Large portions are non sensical and irrelevant to the claim
This is Unacceptable as the defendant has signed a statement of truth whilst clearly not being the defendants knowledge
Their WS states that I alleged I received no correspondence, and the onus is on the driver to update DVLA.
I did update DVLA, but I moved numerous times due to domestic abuse.
This was in my set aside and part of why it was granted.
Evidence was provided at that time.
Is this going to come up again?
*Also they question how I would be able to comment on the signs if I’m not the driver of the vehicle, as she would not have first hand knowledge, therefore it is the claimants position that she is being disingenuous.
I state that photos will be provided in my bundle. I actually haven’t submitted any but I do also know somebody who had PCN from the same carpark,
He gave me all his evidence etc, Mr Booth and he won his case. I linked to the parking pranksters article on it.
So is it ok to use such websites and to use photos from someone else?
I put Excel to strict proof that any contract can exist
*Their WS states it falls foul of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999(UTCCR 1999). Claims the regulations don't apply
This is the link to Mr Booth case who won on the signage
Also the PCN is completely blurred and illegible in their WS evidence
Is this another point?
I have his his email regarding planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent
He had a number of lines of defence, but focussed on the poor signage in the car park. Excel Parking used BW Legal who hired a local solicitor to turn up. She wasn't that well prepared and had not bothered to bring printed copies of the case. When the Judge asked her to refer to defence photographs provided of poor signage she used her phone.
Mr Booth admitted that he never bought a ticket - but this was because he never saw the signage signage in the first place and so no contract was entered into.
Excel provided pictures of the signage, date stamped for August 2015, but the event was in March 2015. They also provided at the last minute a witness statement from the landowner stating he gave authority, date stamped September 2015. The PCN they sent in their Witness statement was a photocopy and completely blurred and illegible.
Mr Booth's arguments were that;
1. Poor signage - there were "staff only" parking signs on the building wall next to where he parked - he questioned the claimant's right to sue someone parked against these bays
2. He questioned their authority to act on behalf of the landlord
3. He questioned whether the signage had planning consent.
The Judge followed this through with Excel's representative: "Did they have a contract which said these bays were exempt or not exempt from Excel issuing tickets on the vehicles parked?
As Excel had not bothered to supply a copy of the actual contract, the solicitor could not confirm either way.
Regarding. planning consent, Mr Booth had an email from the town planning officer stating that in his opinion the signage would require planning consent, and that there was no planning application on file. The judge said if Mr Booth had only brought this point up he may have found differently.
The judge clearly had doubts about the signs where any reasonable person would think the same and that the "staff only" signs would not lead them to think there was a requirement to buy a ticket.
He took a recess for 10 mins then made his judgment.
Claim refused - the parking signs cause confusion , and there was prof there was a contract which allowed the charges claimed.
He went on to state that he was staggered that serial claims companies like Excel do not take a photo of the signs 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.