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

[FTMDave]

Have a look at posts 90-92 on the thread Andyorch linked to, tweak the defence according to your own situation, and post up a draft here.  Don't worry if it's not perfect the first time, that's what we're here for!

 

You certainly need to stick in a bit about the parking charge being paid for.

 

Two questions.  Did you ever find out if this is railway land covered by bye-laws?  Did you tell the fleecers your wife was driving?

 

 

[FTMDave]

No, they haven't covered themselves.  It was the driver of the car who entered into any contract with Excel.  It's got nothing to do with you.  You weren't even there!

 

So in your defence I'd add something like "I was not the driver of the vehicle and so could not enter into any contract with Excel". 

 

Also "The driver of the car effected complete payment of the parking fee".

 

The easiest way to see if the place is covered by bye-laws is to go back there if the place is local to you, or get someone who lives locally to do so.  There are normally signs up about bye-laws.

[FTMDave]

Just file the 4-line defence that EB has suggested.  Nothing more.  That's all that is needed at this stage.

 

If Excel are stupid enough to continue with the case, you will have time later on to expand on what happened at WS stage.

 

I think your deadline is 9 August, whatever you do don't miss it!

 

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

The matter won't just "go away", and was never going to from the moment that you decided, quite rightly, to fight it.

 

You're being taken to court, and you need to prepare for that, in particular you need to prepare a Witness Statement.

 

Simon has a lot of previous of starting cases he knows he has no chance of winning, as a tactic to try to intimidate the motorist into paying, and then withdrawing the claim after WS stage.   This may well happen to you.  But even if you do end up in court, a civil court hearing is no more intimidating than a job interview.

 

Remember that Excel's case is total and utter pants.  You are quite clearly legally in the right.

 

No, you won't find a WS on CAG that perfectly fits your own case, but what you will find is parts of different WSs that you can use.  In particular

   - Excel have no locus standi (that bit should be easy)

   - no planning permission (again, easy)

   - no keeper liability

   - they suffered no loss and are suing over a triviality.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Brassnecked is spot on.

 

You don't seem to understand that courts run to a legal procedure, and there's nothing you, me or any of us can do about that.

 

Excel have decided to sue you.  You have chosen to defend the claim.  The next stage is that both parties have to prepare WSs.  That's how the courts work.

 

The court will give you every opportunity to state your case - in the WS and then later in person in court (if it gets that far).

 

You can of course decide not to prepare a WS.  In that case you will have nothing to rely on in court, the judge will only hear Excel's side and you will lose the case.  Sorry, but if you want to beat Excel you need to put some work in. 

 

 

[FTMDave]

6 minutes ago, Slaughter64 said:

It does say in the small print that I do not have to attend the hearing, and it will be heard in my absence (as long as they have notice), not sure if that is advised.

 

If you don't turn up in court then the judge will only hear one side of the argument - and you will lose.

[FTMDave]

8 minutes ago, Slaughter64 said:

Best get writing that WS then...

Look at the PPC Successes thread at the top of the page.  Choose the threads with "Excel claimform" or "VCS claimform" in the title.  These are highly likely to have WSs, parts of which you can use.

[FTMDave]

I don't know why you were reluctant upthread to prepare a witness statement - what you've got together is magnificent! 

 

It would win just as it is IMO but I have a few tweaks to suggest.

 

I see you've put in the sub-heading "Locus standi".  I think it might be a good idea to put in some other sub-headings too so the judge can easily see your arguments.

 

"Suing the wrong person" (there may be a more formal way to say this, see what others think) before paragraph 2.

 

"De minimis" before paragraph 3.

 

"Abuse of process" before paragraph 7.

 

I think you should also stick something in about keeper liability not being established by the Claimant under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in paragraph 2.

 

I also think you might as well directly include a copy of the ticket as an exhibit, rather than "if the need arises to produce it in court".

 

But this is just nit-picking, you've prepared one hell of a witness statement.  Take that Simon!

 

 

[FTMDave]

Thanks Andy.

[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!

[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.

[FTMDave]

It just gets worse & worse for Simon

[FTMDave]

Great detective work on the forum this evening!

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!