Excel ANPR Windscreen PCN Claimform - Brewery St car park, Chesterfield on 02.07. 2018 ***Claim Dismissed***

[dx100uk]

I see no proof from lease agent it was leased to simon??

 

and i hope this junior paralegal will be at the hearing...

 

[Slaughter64]

Sorry, I didn't know you'd done that with the pdf's, thanks for that.

Other photos attached.

There's just a couple of others showing different angles of the car which surely aren't relevant.

I'm pretty sure that some lackey was to told to just copy everything pertaining to my case and that car park and to get it in the post before the due date, once they realised I wasn't going to pay up.

 

Either that or they just wanted a weighty enough package dropping through my letterbox to scare me off once and for all.

 

Btw, the last photo is one I sent them of the ticket still in my possession.

Photos.pdf

[FTMDave]

On 23/12/2020 at 13:13, Slaughter64 said:

One thing they may push is the fact I 'should have' followed procedure and gone to IAS once the original appeal was not accepted. Would this help them?

 

I've never known judges be interested in this sort of thing, they're interested in whether you had a contract with VCS and broke it, or not

 

The obvious answer to "Why didn't you appeal to the IAS?" is "Why didn't Excel accept your appeal?"

 

If by some freak the judge asks about the IAS, simply tell the truth.  You investigated and found out that the IPC trade body, the IAS appeals service, and the firm of solicitors most often used by the PPCs - are all run by the same people!  There is an obvious conflict of interest.  There are numerous cases where the iAS sided with the PPC, but later a real judge found for the motorist.  You weren't going to waste your time with a kangaroo court.

 

I love "it is not an onerous requirement for motorists to ensure that their ticket is clearly displayed".  It is not an onerous requirement then to issue tickets that are adhesive to make sure they don't blow over!

[Slaughter64]

On 24/12/2020 at 14:38, FTMDave said:

It is not an onerous requirement then to issue tickets that are adhesive to make sure they don't blow over!

 

Exactly!

 

I just need to know if anyone has any pointers as to anything I should take from their WS to add to my final 'bundle', apart from my own WS and exhibits. The bundle needs to be sent this week.

 

I've come this far, I don't want to slip up at the final hurdle. Maybe pm me if it's something they might have missed themselves?

[lookinforinfo]

I've been through your thread and nowhere can I see the windscreen ticket nor the Notice to keeper that should follow later.

Could you please post both of them here front and back.

 

Also  I cannot read the wording on the signage on the ticket machine.

Do you have a clearer copy and the sign at the entrance as well.

I don't  think there is a copy of their contract shown. 

 

I am going out now so will have a look at their WS when I come back.

[Slaughter64]

Hi, all attached below. The signage and NTD are from their WS, I don't have copies. I'm not sure if I ever received a Notice to Keeper as such.

I still have the windscreen ticket so I've scanned the front and back.

 

 

Signage etc.pdf

[brassnecked]

problem with their pictures of signage, is they often lie, and use signs from a totally different car park.

[dx100uk]

for about the same time of this incident the signs were wrongly showing VCS

check carefully when these were updated

 

 

Excel PCN Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

[brassnecked]

If the signage is still VCS as DX mentions, then it blows a hole in their case as Simple Simon has lost in court arguing Excel is also VCS.

[Slaughter64]

I don't see how I can use any other photos (they were taken a year and a half earlier) as evidence even if I go and see what's there now, I just

don't have any from the time my car was there.

[dx100uk]

have you rung the council or even researched the planning permission for the signs?

you need to know when the signs were changed from VCS to excel

 

[Slaughter64]

Even if they were able to tell me, I think it's too late for that, though I can't see why I can't use that photo of the red sign

to use as an argument - if the claimant questions it, I just question the credibility of their photos?

[dx100uk]

not too late 

see what you can find out you should have been doing this already

 

could be another winning point but your major thrust is you have the ticket and the driver paid .

 

dx

 

[FTMDave]

I've read the fleecers' WS again, and can't see much of use.  However, lookinforinfo has loads more experience than me in these matters.

 

Your case is already superb, if you can prove there were signs from two different companies, even better.

[lookinforinfo]

They have messed up since day 1.

 

As they obviously had someone there to place a warning on your windscreen what they should have done is to put a Notice to driver there instead.

 

but when they put that PCN on your windscreen they have to wait at least 29 days before they can send another demand.

 

By placing on the warning instead what they usually do is to send a Notice to Keeper to arrive within 14 days.

 

This has two benefits for them

1] it cuts down the time when they hope to get paid

2] they cut down the length of time that they need to offer the discount.

 

However they have you sent you a NTD rather than an NTK presumably since you wrote to appeal the ticket.

 

I think they must have read your appeal as if you were the driver hence the NTD as there would be no need to write to you as the keeper as they think you are the driver-which makes life easier for them. {they now think they know you are the driver so they don't need to send you the NTK since that would normally be to inform you that if the driver is not going to pay, then under POFA, the keeper then becomes legally responsible for the amount if they can adhere to the Regulations-which they haven't. 

 

By sending the NTD after the 14 day period they cannot pursue the keeper.

Sufficient time has elapsed now so they cannot pursue the driver also.

They have no case.

 

They know it but hope that you don't.

They are now open to you pursuing them for breach of GDPR.

 

However never let it be said that Simple Simon would abandon a case because he is totally in the wrong.

 

Anything could happen

-you could fail to turn up in Court, you might crack and pay up or you could get  a judge that does not understand POFA.

 

So we have to go into overkill to ensure that you win.

 

For instance as well,

your first appeal may have lead them to think you were the driver which is consistent with the fact that they sent you an NTD rather than an NTK since they believed that you were the driver.

 

I know you later admitted to them that your wife was driving which they either didn't pick up on or they thought you were misdirecting them as they knew you were the driver from your first appeal.

 

So you may need to look at that letter just to ensure that there was no admittance that you were the driver in that letter.

 

Moving on to the signage

the entrance sign should contain their terms and conditions. 

It is not possible to allow you to enter the carpark saying that you have to abide by the rules without knowing what the rules are until you are inside the car park.

 

Once you get in their T&Cs are in pretty small writing but I think it is close to the ticket machine so by buying a ticket, you have accepted their rules.

 

There are new Government regs. coming in that will quash all PCNs where a ticket has been paid for but things like being blown over by the wind they are not seen.

 

In any event it has been the case for many years that where proof of a ticket has been paid that in Court no penalty will be levied on the motorist and the parking companies know that.

 

Moving on to their WS

-in s5 they give the usual crap that they have obtained Approved Operator Status through its full compliance with the IPC Code of Practice.

 

It tries to imply that they are all legal and above board while you the motorist is trying to avoid paying what they think you owe.

 

In fact the DVLA suspended their licence for three months because they did not adhere to the Code in 2012.

 

And they are still not adhering to the Code

-example  s2.42 of the IPC Code of Conduct states that they have to be compliant with all necessary legislation.

 

One of the necessities is that they require planning permission for their signs and ANPR.

I have seen no evidence of any planning permission which is a criminal offence.

And should call into question once again their ability to obtain data from the DVLA. 

 

It also calls into question the veracity of their WS.

[You want to hammer that section so that Excel may decide to drop your case as they may have no wish to see the Court being informed of their transgressions as well as possible perjury in their WS.] 

 

I have not seen a copy  of the contract with the landowner so cannot comment on whether one still exists or what the terms are. But the WS does not seem too accurate in other places so does call into question the contract.

 

In s15 it states that the T&Cs are shown in all the signage-hat is not true. It is not on the most important one -the entrance one.

 

In s17 instead of issuing a PCN they stick a card on the windscreen which is not compliant with POFA.

 

In s18 it states  that after 5 days of receiving the warning without an appeal or payment an NTK was sent. What they sent was an NTD.

Another inaccuracy.

 

In s25 they use Thornton v shoe lane parking as an example of what makes a contract.

But under POFA a lot more is needed than just a sign and a contract.

There has to be compliance with all the Laws and Regulations which there isn't without the Council permission.

 

S29 is an over simplification.

 

s31 is a dog's breakfast.

An NTK never appears to have been sent.

Therefore there can be no liability on the keeper.

There is no onus on the keeper to divulge the driver's ID

POFA merely invites the keeper to do so.

 

S32 the keeper did not identify himself as the driver he actually said it was his wife at one stage.

 

S34 the Law of Agency applies to commercial contracts so absurd to imply that your wife is acting as your agent. But it does imply that they are not sure whether the driver was the keeper

 

s36 was a case involving 9 PCNs.

Here is another involving District Judge Dignan where Excel lost because they couldn't identify the driver.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/vcs-lose-claim-no-keeper-liability.html

 

S38 the ticket though upside down was identified by the number on the back of the ticket which corresponded to the number on the front of the ticket as being recent.

 

S40 totally irrelevant as circumstances totally different. This defendant had paid to park.

 

S48 PE V Beavis made the point that if the default was of secondary importance then charging would be a penalty.

 

This charge IS a penalty.

 

Why is the paralegal allowed to redact their name.

The parking companies are notorious for using fictitious names on their WS and not turning up in Court so that they cannot be challenged on the veracity of their often dubious claims.

 

Plus you have all the other ammunition from others on the Forum.

 

[Slaughter64]

Wow! Thanks for that Lookin, much appreciated. I think we have enough there don't we?!

 

What I need to know now is how much of that I need to include in my key documents bundle for the hearing, according to the bit I highlighted in the court directions.

I guess I can just list those sections you mentioned from their WS (+ my arguments against), and send it to the court as well as Excel. As well as my WS and exhibits again, of course.

 

I also need to liaise with Excel somehow, to agree those documents. Do I just try and call them, or write?

 

Btw, it was me that redacted the paralegal's name - I didn't want to be doing something out of order.

[brassnecked]

Don't liaise with Excel you don't have to agree diddly squat with them, Lookedin has demolished their WS so use that as a sound basis. just submit your WS bundle to them and the Court.

[lookinforinfo]

If I had written their WS I would have redacted my name but I can understand why you did it.

My idea of a WS is that not only do you put your arguments in but you do it in such a way if you can that makes them ask whether they want to go in front of a Judge with the WS.

 

If you really tear their WS to pieces and show that they are not what they purport to be in S5 the balance of probabilities may be that they fail to turn up-which is ideal for you.

 

I am sorry if it means a fair bit of rewriting but they have got a fair bit wrong and it would do them an injustice, don't you think, if you didn't let the Judge know.

 

I think that you should have varying pieces of evidence to support your WS which you may not need but held in case of need.

 

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/WalmsleyRvLaneAnor.pdf

This was a case where she paid but entered the wrong reg. number a TFL case

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/vcs-lose-claim-no-keeper-liability.html

Excel lose for non pofa

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/excel_parking_ban_suspended

excel confirmation of DVLA suspension

 

https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

IPC code of practice

 

https://publicaccess.chesterfield.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple

just put  the carpark postcode into the search place that starts with" keyword." Shows no permissions granted for signage

 

 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/09/bargepole-assists-motorist-to-reclaim.html

that one explains stations with bye laws/pofa free if you bring up bye laws

[Slaughter64]

I forgot to attach this, I don't know if this is the Notice to Keeper that we're missing or not as it doesn't say it at the top.

 

It's from their WS and was put next to the Letter before Claim so I thought it was from this year which is why I didn't take much notice of it, but it's actually dated a month after the

Notice to Driver. Does an NTK have to say it at the top?

 

 

Notice of Court proceedings.pdf

[dx100uk]

you did include them in the WS uploads i merged.

 

odds notes of musings i made a few days ago...

:

8. The Claimant is the Leaseholder of the Car Park. The Claimant erected warning
notices throughout the development making clear that anyone parking within the
development did so on in accordance With the Terms and Conditions of the sign.
This was in order to regulate the parking situation in accordance with the
powers conferred upon the property managers of the development.
.
so excel are the developers / property managers too?!?!?!
.
.

9. The Claimant submits that they had the authority to implement a parking
scheme on the date of the contravention. There has been no notice of
termination and the Claimant remains contracted 10 enforce parking to date. The
Claimant is contracted to undertake parking management activities and issue
Parking Charge Notices [PCN] where vehicles are identified on the
development in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions. A copy of the
Leaseholder Witness Statement can be identified in exhibit AAl.
.
so where is this contract signed by themselves giving themselves parking management powers ?!?!
.
.
10, Further to this role, the Claimant was appointed to monitor the development for
compliance with the Terms and Conditions...
.
appointed by whom and when?

.
.
11. In accordance with contract appointing the Claimant, the Claimant was
entitled to pursue any parking charges as a result breach of the Terms and
Conditions of the parking scheme in their own names.

.
were they...where is the proof of this?!?!
.
.
17 ...., the Claimant affixed a card to the vehicle informing the Driver that they may have
breached the Terms and Conditions of parking.
.
.
18, The card provided the Driver with a unique code that allowed the Driver the
opportunity to access an online portal. ...This allows the Keeper the opportunity to either appeal or pay the
Charge Notice,
.
how does a card become a PCN?!?!?

[Slaughter64]

46 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

you did include them in the WS uploads i merged.

Ok, sorry, panicked a bit there. I'm guessing they can't say that's the NTK then.

 

Thanks for the musings.

 

More good news - I went on Google Maps and it clearly (almost) shows the two different signs with two different companies named.

And - note the date the photos were taken - July 2018!! The close up of the red sign is from the previous year, but my close up

from the screen shot just shows the VCS wording.

 

Signs.pdf

[brassnecked]

That will cause them  some problems  as Simple Simon has been toclchocked in court for claiming both companies are the same previously

[dx100uk]

and i believe for this very same site too.

 

dx

[FTMDave]

It just gets worse & worse for Simon

[lookinforinfo]

Oh dear- more problems for Simple Simon. On the PCN the post code is S41 8NG which is Dunston Road in Chesterfield. Brewery st car park is S41 7UG. If they cannot get the postcode of their carpark right ...............................