Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Excel ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Appealed - Gallagher retail park, Huddersfield, HD5 0AN


Recommended Posts

I was pointed in the direction of this site

I have a Letter before claim.

Ive flown solo aside from my own efforts on Google and would have thought they would have gone away by now but still they come.

Hope you can help in any final response I give to the LBC. 

I think I've followed the instructions correctly.

Should I also attach  the LBC? TIA

1 Date of the infringement 26/11/2023

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] Unsure as disposed of it although it was within a few days

3 Date received Was within a few days

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Dont recall

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes on entry and exit 13 minutes over the "permitted time". The photos show driving in and out. This is a busy car park and it can take 10-15 minutes to find a spot and exit

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes principle argument was I wasnt the driver. The driver was not happy for me to share their personal data however they were happy and i did submit bank statement showing the driver was a legitimate customer of 3 of the retailers at the retail park. The appeal was submitted on their website  I dont have a copy other than their response to it (included in bundle)

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Rejected

7 Who is the parking company? Excel Parking 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Gallagher retail park, Huddersfield, HD5 0AN

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.

IAS - I didnt appeal any further although did write to them again with another template I found (cant recall from where - it could have been from here) as attached

 

Comms in-out.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, did you get that lot from an FMOTL site? Bad advice unfortunately.

IMO ignore them until/unless they issue a claim, the responses you have received are simply computer-generated at the minute, and no one is reading your correspondence.

NEVER appeal, they ALWAYS reject, and then you enter into pointless letter tennis.

It may be prudent to obtain the NTK and any other relevant info/correspondence you've binned, especially the NTK because that will show if they are following the PofA act correctly, if not then they can only chase the driver.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

BB - the OP says they are already at Letter of Claim stage.

Warrior - before going any further, let's deal with the matter of naming the driver.

Excel and their sister company VCS are very well known to us.  They have a company policy of issuing court claims against huge numbers of motorists who don't pay them, maybe the majority.  Therefore, however you respond, you're likely to have to see them off in court.

Winning in court is not a problem, but be aware that's where the winning will probably be.  I once went through old cases and worked out that Caggers won against these companies in court around 85% of the time.

Presumably they have this disgusting policy because there must be large numbers of people who cave in when court papers arrive, so Excel/VCS can take on the chin the number who have the staying power to go all the way and beat them.

So - do you want to name the driver to them and remove yourself from the loop?

Or are you happy to keep fighting them yourself?  We will of course back you up all the way.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please upload the letter of claim.

Also at this point the advice is to write a "snotty letter", to show you'd be a real pain if they pursue you through the courts.

Use our search bar to search for snotty letter.

Please post up what you propose sending, to let the team critique it😉

Also have a read around this forum, to give you an idea of the lowlife's you're dealing with here. (also to find out why it's pointless appealing.)

Sorry, crossposted with Dave.

ps well done on not "outing" the driver in your appeal.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the parking charge reason appears to be a 13 minute overstay I'd say this one has got not chance in Court as the minimum allowance is 10 minutes so they are trying it on because the car park was busy and it took you an extra 3 minutes to get out.

Write the snotty letter and post it up here before you send it to be checked and stay off FMOTL wibble wobble sites, that pathway leads to nothing but trouble.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

If I out the driver Id still be the one dealing with it and paying any fines

I've defended myself successfully in a smalls claims court before with a 3rd party car insurance company

I don't mind going all they way .

LBC attached.

Ill get working on the snotty letter and post shortly.

Thanks again

 

2024-03-21 Excel PAPLOC.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Excel ANPR PCN Letter Of Claim - Appealed - Gallagher retail park, Huddersfield, HD5 0AN

it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand

no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything.

Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter

hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do).

Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS.

Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves.

10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either.

the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get.

............

 

thread title updated

PDF files properly named

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snotty Letter Draft 1:

Thank you for your Letter Before Claim

I am 2-0 up in terms of Small Claim Court Proceedings so I look forward to the opportunity to claim a Hat Trick, this being more straight forward than my previous two cases.

Thank you for also agreeing to the terms of my previous letter and please find enclosed my invoice for £50 which should be paid by cheque within 28 days of this letter.

I will be asking the court to consider the time I spend defending this absurd claim in line with the fees you have already agreed to.

Despite my best endeavours you still are of the belief I have breached your terms. I cannot breach terms that I was not present to accept.

Did you even read my initial response?

Maybe have another read and save yourself some money.

I look forward to your solicitor trying to settle with me in the waiting area before we go into the chambers. I will have my final invoice ready for them less any payments you have already made.

Yours faithfully

Xxxxxxxx

Enc – Invoice for processing of Letter Before Claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice snotty tone, BUT, remove all reference to sending them invoices, etc.

You are expressing a lack of knowledge by using Freeman of the Land stuff.

This will only embolden them, thinking you're an easy target.

Upload Ver 2 when you're ready😉

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How about these changes?  There's a hint there about the consideration & grace periods without actually spelling it out.  They must know that means their case is rubbish.  However, they are very, very litigious.

Dear Simple Simon,

Re: your invoice no.XXXXX

thank you for your Letter Before Claim

I am 2-0 up in terms of Small Claim Court Proceedings so I look forward to the opportunity to claim a Hat Trick, this being more straight forward than my previous two cases.

I will be asking the court for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your conduct over this absurd claim.

Despite my best endeavours you still are of the belief I have breached your terms. I cannot breach terms that I was not present to accept.

Did you even read my initial response?  Maybe have another read and save yourself some money.

While you're at it have a butcher's at section 13 of the IPC Code of Practice, 2023 edition, dumbo.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxxxxx

Edited by FTMDave
Typo
  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

you ignore the forms totally

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the snotty letter should not respect any of Simple Simon's systems.

Invest in a 2nd class stamp tomorrow and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

However, watch out that Simon throws claim forms around like confetti.  The snotty letter might convince Excel that you are more trouble than you're worth or they may chance it anyway.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that you threw away the original PCN. That document lays out their claim plus includes the wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 .If they get the wording right they can then transfer the liability form the driver to the keeper if the charge is not paid within 28 days. The Act has been in force for 12 years now so the braindead at Excel still haven't probably managed to do it right yet  

So it's good that you have not as yet named the driver. If the PCN is incorrectly worded then neither yourself nor the driver can be pursued. You can send them an SAR where the should send you the details that have on you including the original PCN.  If they fail to respond in the allotted time you can sue them and when they send you their Witness Statement they have to include their first PCN.

I expect they are using ANPR to record your  time in the car park. Sadly for them that is not the parking period since there is some driving involved in getting to a parking place and then driving from there to the exit plus being held up en route because of traffic, pedestrians etc.

On top of that there is a Consideration period and a grace period which are 5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively. These times are MINIMUMS something that the ignoramuses at Excel have failed to grasp so do not worry- your hat trick is in sight.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting that we had absolutely nothing on this car park - and now there are two cases within a few days of each other. 

Do you know if these parking restrictions are recent?

  if so there is stuff in the industry Codes of Practice about the change having to be made apparent with special signs, none of which Excel will have put up.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry only just seen the message above.

I think there have always been restrictions but they have as i understand chopped and changed it.

For years it was 2 hours then I think they moved it to 3 hours and now it looks like they have reverted to 2.

2 hours is woefully insufficient if you are visiting several establishments on the site and then finishing with a Maccys.

Even more so when you consider how hard it is to access and egress on a Saturday or Sunday morning as the car park is not big enough so you a frequently waiting for a space to appear and then queuing to get out.

i have now received a letter from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd). saying the same thing as Excel were saying i.e pay £170 or we will recommend Excel to take me to court.

The fact i have instructed them several times just to take me to court makes me believe they have no intention of taking me to court - they just think now asking another bully to shake me down will work.......

I can post the letter if you want me to but Im guessing the advice is to just ignore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, but, but...

They've already sent you a letter of claim, which said...

"Should the outstanding balance not be settled by 20/04/20204 we will commence legal proceedings against you without further notice."

🤣 🤣 🤣

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

we dont nursemaid....

get reading up even if only in your own thread since post one.

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write to DCBL asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or are Excel demanding the charge.

Also ask  if the charge includes vat.

If it does why are you expected to pay their vat?

Explain that you will need to know these answers before you go to Court and they already know that you are not going to pay so you are looking forward to going to court.

Give it a few days and write the same letter to Excel apart from reversing DCBL and Excel's names at the beginning.

IE write to Excel asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or DCBL.

Then continue with what was asked in the first paragraph.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I am now in receipt of a second Letter of Claim this time from DCBL although their letter head now says " DCBLegal"  😱

Now I'm guessing one response to a letter of claim is sufficient and I could ignore this but having been inspired by other snotty letters I wanted to have another bash at one. How does this sound?

Dear Lackeys of Company with Unconscionable Morals,

Thank you ever so much for gracing me with yet another Letter Before Claim on behalf of Excel Parking Services. How many of these delightful missives do you plan on sending before you muster the courage to follow through on your threats to take me to court?

Just so we're clear, here is the response (in italics by that I mean the slanted text below) I previously sent to Excel’s Letter Before Claim, in case your attention to detail is as lacking as I suspect:

I am currently 2-0 up in terms of Small Claims Court proceedings and I look forward to the opportunity to claim a hat trick, this case being more straightforward than my previous two. I will be asking the court for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your conduct over this absurd claim.

Despite my best efforts, you continue to assert that I have breached your terms. However, I cannot breach terms that I was not present to accept. Have you even read my initial response? I suggest you review it thoroughly and save yourself some money.

Additionally, please refer to section 13 of the IPC Code of Practice, 2023 edition.

I eagerly await your deafening silence.

Remarkably, I haven't heard a peep from Excel since my response; instead, they've passed the baton to you to perform this tiresome routine once more.

Consider this my official notice that I am sending a cease and desist letter to Excel Parking Services. Their relentless hounding has crossed the line into clear harassment.

Any further demands for payment from you, as Excel's lackeys, will be regarded as nothing more than shameless acts of intimidation and harassment.

I now look forward to the deafening sound of your silence.

Yours sincerely,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree HB.

Remove the cease and desist stuff.

Otherwise it's a cracker!

Shame you've used so many big words that they will just not understand.😅

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok cease and desist stuff removed.

Ready to send tomorrow but i will keep an eye out for any further comments

. Is now an appropriate time to maybe do a SAR with Excel given i didn't keep some of the earlier notices they sent me and by passing my personal data to DCBL in a case they know they have 0% chance of success is clearly a breach of the GDPR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

GDPR breach? :crazy:

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...