Excel/BW/Elms ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - But i paid! - Providince St Wakefield WF1 3BG ***Claim Dismissed***

[cagedbird]

Here's a brief run down of history of my situation.

 

I regularly parked in the Providence Street, Wakefield carpark, operated by Excel, and generally used the Ringo App to pay for parking.

 

My usual habit was to park the car and then whilst walking to the office, use the app on my phone to make the payment.

 

On the 2nd May this year I was unable to make payment, errors connecting etc. Each attempt to pay resulted in failure. On arriving at the office I tried to log into my account using the desktop PC, again there were difficulties with logging into the site. I eventually suceeded in making the payment. By this time 1 hour 18 minutes had passed between entering the carpark and making the payment.

 

I thought nothing more of it until the notice from Excel, for not displaying a valid pay and display ticket. I responded via email pointing out that a ticket had been purchased. Their response was that sufficient time (10 minutes) was allowed for purchasing a ticket and that 'payment for parking had not been correctly made'.

 

An appeal was made through IAS, which was, without any surprise, found in favour of Excel.

 

The matter has been placed in the hands of BW Legal who are pursuing the matter. I have had two letters from them, both have gone unaswered. The first stating they are acting for Excel. The second pointing out that I hadn't responded to their first letter and advising of the possibility of County Court Proceedings.

 

The initial claim from Excel was, and appears to still be the case despite providing a copy of the receipt, that I stayed for 528 minutes without payment.

 

They don't appear to be bright enough to switch their claim to being that the 10 minute grace period was exceeded and not that a ticket wasn't purchased.

 

This leads to my request for advice / information. I have attached a PDF showing Excel's handing over of the issue to BW, and BW's confirmation of the instruction. I've also included a photo of the sign at the entrance to the carpark and outlined in red the statements that assistance is requested.

 

1) Does the PCN £100 section bear any weight? As I didn't make a payment until 1 hour 18 minutes after parking, was any contract entered into? If not is it possible to "breach the T&Cs"? Would it stand up in court?

 

2) The T&Cs for the site are situated at the ticket machines, some 30+ yards away from this sign. What weight and how enforceable is the section marked "!"?

 

As pointed out in the appeal through IAS, Excel haven't lost any revenue. I paid £5.00 (12 hours) for parking and stayed 528 minutes (entry to exit times). The payment was late but had I managed to pay at the time of entering I would have paid £5.00 and stayed the exact same amount of time.

 

My view and from what I've read in other postings, the best that can be held against me is that of trespass for the 1 hour 18 minutes between entering the carpark and purchasing the ticket. And, if this is the case, then it's not Excel that has the power to pursue this course of action. It is the land-owner that has to take it and that claim would be restricted to the amount of the loss of revenue / damage caused. In this case the grand sum of £0.

 

My tack is to continue to ignore the communications from Excel and BW Legal and defend any County Court proceedings that they see fit to pursue.

 

Any / all thoughts, advice and pointers will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks for reading.

Excel.pdf

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

[FTMDave]

Excel haven't lost any revenue. I paid £5.00 (12 hours) for parking and stayed 528 minutes (entry to exit times). The payment was late but had I managed to pay at the time of entering I would have paid £5.00 and stayed the exact same amount of time.

 

The experts will be on in the morning, but in my (very limited) knowledge this is the key point. If they were daft enough to do court, a judge would give them a good kicking. However, await the experts.

[ericsbrother]

they have no claim, you paid and that is that No such thing in the parking contract as the payment not correctly made. What if you paid cash, would they sue you for using 10p coins of a particular year they didnt like as being not correctly made?

 

 

You paid and that is all that matters. their system being crap isnt your fault, the reality is you didnt actually have to pay them by that stage, your attempts were good enough and their dodgy system mitigates your actions. Excel have lost loads of court claims for this sort of thing, when it comes to it you can remind them of a few, we will dig some out when they get BW to waste their money with a begging letter.

[cagedbird]

1. Date of the infringement - 2nd May 2018
2. Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 14th May 2018
3. Date received - 17th May 2018
4. Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? - Not that I can see
5. Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Yes
6. Have you appealed? [y/n?] post up your appeal - Yes
7. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - Yes
8. Who is the parking company? Excel Parking Services Limited
9. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Providence Street, Wakefield.
10. For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under? - IAS

docs1.pdf

[ericsbrother]

Ok the time of the BREACH is 6pm or thereabouts, what time did you pay up?

Until you leave you havent breached the agreement as the contract is not made at entry with this sort of payment system.

 

so for example, if they via their system decided you were so naughty to pay late they wanted damages instead they should have blocked your payment and issued the demand stating the time of the refused payment.

 

Now this isnt definitive but for example,

a car park with a barrier only charges you at exit.

In this case you could pay them for 2 separate parking periods without moving your vehicle past their cameras.

How would they cope?

answer,

the same way as now,

get it wrong and demand money come what may.

 

They accepted the payment so accepted the variation of their standard contract.

you made an offer and they accepted so the scrawl on the wall no longer counts.

Edited November 5, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[cagedbird]

Hi EB,

 

I entered the carpark just after 9am, managed to pay, via Ringo, at about 10:20am and left the carpark just after 6pm.

 

I have pointed out to Excel that at the time of the alleged breach a valid, paid for session was in progress [they've seen the evidence], but the thing they keep on pushing is the 1 hour 18 minutes that the car was parked without a 'valid pay & display' ticket. They appear to be fixated on the '10 Minutes' grace period and the £60/£100 penalty for exceeding it.

 

It's derogatory to Muppets, but it's what we're dealing with - absolute, total Muppets.

[brassnecked]

They haven't a cat in hells chance of winning in court if they are that stupid, you paid ergo no loss,

[cagedbird]

you paid ergo no loss,

 

I've pointed that out to them as well. It was also mentioned (and ignored) in the IAS - Kangaroo Court - appeal.

 

Do I point this out to BWL, or ignore everything until the Court paperwork arrives?

 

I'm in favour of the latter - ignore.

[dx100uk]

ignore until/unless you get a letter of/before claim from BW or a claimform from northants bulk court

[cagedbird]

Thanks, DX.

[cagedbird]

Hi,

 

I'm back.

 

Received a "Letter of Claim" this morning - scan attached.

 

I take it that I complete the appropriate sections of the Reply Form and provide a copy of the RingGo receipt.

 

Cheers.

 

Thanks.

Letter_Claim_01 .pdf

[dx100uk]

you don't use any of their forms

 

simply write a somewhat abusive letter back to BW regarding you have a ringo receipt.

don't hold back either...

 

if you use the search cag box of the top red toolbar

 

letter of claim PCN BW legal

or

same but gladstones

 

you'll get the idea

[cagedbird]

Hi,

 

Thanks for the response. Here's a response I've quickly thrown together:

 

 

With reference to your letter of 26th November 2018, reference as above, its contents are acknowledged.

 

Firstly, I refuse to complete and return your “Reply Form”.

 

Secondly, I vehemently refute the “Particulars of Debt” and the statements made within it.

 

It appears that you are either going along with your client’s instructions without question, in the misguided belief that everything they say is accurate and true. Or, and this is my opinion and belief, that your client, the Independent Appeals Service and yourselves are in cahoots, using bullying tactics in the hope that yet another innocent victim will pay the Speculative Invoice, otherwise known as a Parking Charge Notice.

 

I have documentary evidence that the statement in the “Particulars of Debt” - quoted verbatim from your letter:

 

On 2 May 2018, you breached the Terms and Conditions by Parked without purchasing a valid Pay & Display ticket (“Breach”).

 

is not true.

 

Your client has been afforded with a copy of the document but have either chosen to ignore it or believe that they are a bully of sufficient stature to carry on regardless in the hope of a submission on my part. It’s not going to happen!

 

I respectfully suggest that you liaise with your client and obtain a full account of the claim and the communications that have passed between us so as to be able to assess the likelihood of any claim made through the County Court being successful. It’s the very least I would expect from a professional company claiming to “provide excellent customer experience… and treating people fairly”.

 

Any thoughts?

[brassnecked]

If the payment was via Smartphone there would be no ticket to display surely, so they fall at that point anyway.

[FTMDave]

You've told them where to stick their claim, although I would have made it shorter and more abusive, in line with EB's classics.

 

However, I would suggest replacing the last paragraph with something like "I paid, your clients have no case, but if you want them to get a good kicking in court, bring it on. I will of course ask for full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (CPR Part 27.14(2)(g))". Plus write at the top of your letter "Copied to Excel Parking Services Limited" (and yes, send them a copy).

 

All this conning and fleecing is not just limited to ripping the motorist off, unscrupulous solicitors often egg their clients on to take court action even though they know full well it will fail - after all, they get paid either way.

[ericsbrother]

any thoughts?

 

Yes, never be polite to them. I wouldnt be polite to an armed robber whom I had just disarmed.

tell them tbeir client has no chance of winning this spurious claim and that they should try earning a living that doesnt involve telling lies to the semi-literate ex-clampers who are members of the IPC as it just looks like cruelty when it comes to the actual court hearing.

 

that makes a change from my stock suggested response so try it. being nice guarantees a court claim, the harsher ripostes often dont and as they can be used in evidence it will only illuminate their unreasonable conduct

Edited December 3, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[cagedbird]

How about this, then:

 

I’ll keep this simple so as to avoid confusion.

 

The Particulars of Debt in your letter is a lie.

 

I paid - I have proof of payment.

 

Your client has been given the proof bit still insists I haven’t paid.

 

My proof of payment transcends their claim of non-payment.

 

You / your client have no possibility of winning this usurped claim.

 

Should your client insists on taking Court action, then please be aware and advise them that I will make a request to the Court for full costs due to unreasonable behaviour (CPR Part 27.14(2)(g))".

[brassnecked]

Don't say "Lie" say that it is unsubstantiated due to holding proof of payment. ASuch proof should only be sent as a pdf, jpeg or photocopy keep the original very safe

[ericsbrother]

absolutely agree with sending Excel a copy, they fell out with Gladdys over the number of claims they lost due to the laxy presentation and went it alone for a while ( they still lost defended claims). Letting them know that Gladdys are wasting their cash may well put the brakes on this and as you can wave the evidence to taunt them they know a costs order is in the offing

[cagedbird]

Should I include a copy of the proof, or make them either ask for it or get it from Excel?

[dx100uk]

No let them waste their time finding it

[ericsbrother]

If they dont speak to their client they will lose any claim made and be liable for a full cost recovery order becuase they haven't done their homework. They have to prove their claim so let them have a copy AFTER they have gone too far to avoid costs.

 

They know that they dont have a leg to stand on becuase you have told them, if they cant be bothered to either look at their records or ask nicely then they deserve to pay out wasted money on this.

 

the more they pay on wasted costs the less likely they are to try the same trick again

so again I say dont think about being nice, they earn millions by false representation.

[cagedbird]

Well that's the letters off to BW and Excel. Let's see what they make of it.

[cagedbird]

Hi all,

 

Response received from BW today. Copy attached.

 

What a surprise that they are going to continue to pursue the matter.

 

It seems that they spout their rubbish so often that they believe it themselves.

 

They haven't asked for a response, so I'm not inclined to do so - unless there's a compelling reason that anyone can suggest.

 

Happy reading.

BWLegal 2018-12-13.pdf