Tweet
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Sorry I do not understand your reply mystery 1...
Sorry I do not understand your reply mystery 1...
Loading...
-
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
here is the letter...Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
anyone help with regard to the above letter received recently...?
I was wondering what to expect if they take me to court...would it be in the form of a letter and how is the date fixed..??Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Give people a chance !! It is the weekend! This looks like BW legal acting as a debt collector and therefore nothing to worry about and probably best ignored.
Get back when you get a letter entitled Letter Before Claim, or similar wording. you respond to that.
After the LBC then if they are going to take it further then you will get a claim form from Northampton. You acknowledge the claim which gives you 28 days to submit your defence. Then you select you local court and then you will get a court date. You present the final expanded defence to your local court 14 days before the hearing. You will get help all the way.Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter of xxxxx the contents of which are noted. I have repeatedly told Excel, and i repeat to yourselves, i was not the driver and you have stated repeatedly that you do not rely of the keeper liability provisions of the protection of freedoms act.
In order to understand your case and comply with the pre action protocols please can you provide me with the documents upon which your case relies, including, but not limited to the evidence of who was driving, the PCN and the contract with the legal occupier of the land as well as the signs you will no doubt claim created a contract with the driver.
I take this opportunity to remind you that the protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 states at paragraph 4
"(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if" and then goes on to list the conditions that can create keeper liability.
As you can see the statute clearly states that keeper liability can only occur on the strict adherence to PoFA 2012 not on some magical whim as you appear to think.
Henry Michael Greenslade QC, the former lead adjudicator for Popla said, whilst still in his position,
"Understanding keeper liability“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
Obviously there is a degree of common sense to be applied also, why would the government bring in legislation to provide for keeper liability if one could just assume it was ? It is clear that parliament believe that Elliot v Loake was not suitable and that they felt the need to hold registered keepers liable but only with strict conditions attached.
Aside from this Excel have lost in court using this same argument Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016.
I have repeatedly explained that i was not the driver and you continue to harass me when the law is clear that you do not have the right to enforce against the keeper using PoFA 2102 which you freely admit. I will counterclaim on this basis for harassment.
Yours Sincerely
M1Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Many thanks for your responses .
I have just emailed a copy of the above to BW legal
I await their reply
Much appreciatedComment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
further to the above I have received another letter from bw legal and in the words of victor meldrew I don't believe it..!!!!
after all the correspondence I have sent them they are trying it on again...Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Don't suppose you have the BT engineers report still ?
M1Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Looks like they are still trying it on by requesting driver's detailsComment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Yup but it would be great to send proof that the RK wasn't the driver, or couldn't have been, without revealing the drivers identity as it's better to avoid court than go with a great chance of winning which always carries a little risk.Originally posted by ostell View Post
M1Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
ive got the email..it just states that I need to be in between 7am and 6pm..
the engineer actually came at 4pm when I signed for the merchandise ..
I also have the letter from excel which states"in this case we are not seeking to rely on POFA2012..Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Dear Bw Legal,
Thank you for your letter of xxth November 2016 the contents of which are noted.
As you will no doubt be aware you and your clients have recently lost a number of court cases in similar scenarios.
1. Excel Parking v Mr TS C8DP67P5 Elliott v Loake is irrelevant in a civil case with no proof and no "assumption" is permitted.
2. Excel v Mr L. 17/11/2016 Skipton "The judge dismissed the claim, summing it up as follows, saying it boiled down to two things.1. Either the claimant could PROVE the defendant was the driver... which they obviously couldn't.
Or
2. They could comply with PoFA to pursue the defendant as the keeper... which it was proved they did not."
3. Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016 Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed.
Amongst others.
I repeat, I WAS NOT THE DRIVER.
Yours sincerely
M1Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Many Thanks for this I have copied your letter Mystery 1 and sent it to them ..Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
Hi
I have had further correspondence from BW legal which I have attached a copy stating that they do not rely on POFA 2012.....
I am at a loss as to how to respond to this..????
Many Thanks for your help in advance....Comment
-
Re: excel parking services parking fine....
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...t-v-loake.html
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ladstoned.html
Not sure if it's worth sending the previous email again with updates or not. Depends whether you can be arsed, i guess.
M1Comment
Comment