BW Legal./ Excel Parking County Court - Offer

[annastasia]

Hi Â* Â* I originally received a parking fine from Excel back in March 2012, I have never actually stated who was driving the vehicle but have never denied being in the car park on that day. I received the Parking notices couple of weeks after the date in question so had not retained the actual parking display ticket as proof that I had purchased a ticket. Â*At the time I did ask to see more proof that I had not purchased a ticket as showing me a photo of my vehicle entering and leaving said car park, is not evidence that I had not paid.


Excel discounted my appeal and have been sending me letters ever since. Â*After reading lots of advice on here at the time I have ignored all letters hoping they would go away. Â*Coming up to six years later in four weeks time `I received a county court letter from Northampton, I replied to this with my defence. Â*Then last week I received a letter from BW Legal saying their clients still wish to pursue their claim. Â*

Today I have received another letter from BW Legal Â*(attached) Â*with an offer to pay £150 instead of £271.38, I can see that their letter is a bog standard letter that they send out in the hope that we will give in and pay the said amount. Â*

I'm not sure what to do next, do I just pay the amount to get rid of the whole sorry sage or do I carry on fighting even though I don't really want to have to go to court.


In the letter attached they point out that some my defence had numerous grammatical errors, which made me laugh as reading their own letter I found a few grammatical errors!

Â*Any advice will be appreciated
many thanks

[ostell]

I can't read your letters at all but from what you have said the identity of the driver at the time may have been revealed, even in your post. Edit it, just say "the driver.... "etc. Can you post up the letters again so that they are readable (there's not enough definition)? There is no legal requirement to name the driver.

Can you also post up the defence that you send, removing identifying details.

Up till October 2012 only the driver could be held accountable for parking charges. If they didn't know the driver then they were sunk. After October there was a change in the law that allowed them to claim from the keeper. The date of your parking was before the new law came in and therefore if they do not know who the driver was then they are sunk.

They are just tidying up old cases before they become statute barred.

[annastasia]

Thank you for your reply, I don't think I have ever stated that I was the driver but have stated that I had paid for my car parking ticket.

Here is the defence:


Re: BW Legal County Court Letter

I have drafted this as a defence could you advise if it is ok or do I need to add more, never done one of these before


It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.ÂÂÂ*


However it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim on the following grounds:


1. The payment for parking was made in full on 17.03.2012 to Excel Parking via P & DÂÂÂ*ticket machine.




2. No evidence has been provided to date that a valid ticket was not purchased on 17.03.12 or that it was displayed correctly in the vehicle windscreen. Despite requests to Excel Parking. A photograph of my vehicle registration plate entering/leaving the carpark does not provide proof that a ticket was not purchased or displayed in the windscreen.




3. As I did not receive the PNC until two weeks after 17.03.12 I was no longer in possession of the purchased ticket therefore I was not able to use that as evidence that I had purchased the carpark ticket and paid the correct amount to park for the duration of my stay.




4. No further evidence has been provided to support this despite several requests. Please find attached copy of an email sent to Excel Parking on 11.04.2012 requesting proof from Excel Parking that a ticket had not been purchased. All I received was a reply from Excel Parking stating they would no longer communicate with me.




If the Claimant had produced clear evidence that no ticket was purchased, then I would have paid the PNC as requested rather then risk a CCJ being issued against my name.




5. If the Claimant understood that the vehicle registration was mis_typed than ExcelParking Services Policy was not adhered to as outlined here by Excel:




“ We do recognise that motorist may input an incorrect digit(s) of their VR number when purchasing a P & D ticket and as such your processing allows for manual review/quality check of PNC’s before they are issued.”


6. This manual check either was not completed or incorrectly completed resulting in the erroneous PNC.




7. The manual check record has not been provide by the Claimant despite requested
by the defendant.




8 If the vehicle registration was mis-typed the claimant has accepted new terms. By accepting monies when the claimant knew, or could reasonably be expected to know, the registration entered did not belong to a car in the car park, the claimant has by its action accepted by performance a revised contract. This is the car park equivalent of the ‘battle of the forms” Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979) 1 WLR 401, Court of Appeal.




9. Since the parking fee was paid, there was no breach of contract and no loss was incurred by the claimant- there is no commercial justification for the amount claimed £271.38


10. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Claimant claim a sum of £271.38 as the “amount claimed” (for which liability is denied) plus The Particulars of Claim include £50 that the Claimant has untruthfully presented as legal representative’s costs. The Claimant is well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims court. They are unjustified and should be struck out as unrecoverable.




To Summerise:
Â*

• Since the parking fee was paid, there was no breach of contract and no loss was incurred by the claimant - there is no commercial justification for the amount claimed £271.38
• The Claimant is not the landholder and therefore not in a position to issue this charge.
• The Protection of Freedom Act does not permit the Claimant to recover such an inflated amount.

Many thanks for your help and advice

[ostell]

That defence is so wrong.Â* You have mentioned POFA but POFA was not enabled till October 2012
You have admitted driving
Â*