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

[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.

[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.

 

[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

[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 ...............................

[lookinforinfo]

Well done. you had so many factors in your favour that I am surprised that they pursued it to the end. 

Nothing better than getting good news at the start of the year.