Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

[tweety]

Hi,

This is my first post, hello everybody. Such a brilliant forum!

Im after advice regarding a small court claim issued against me by Excel parking in regards to six separate 'Parking Charge Notices' issued at The Peel Centre car park - these span over a time period of 18 months (between July 2014 and Jan 2016).

The total amount claimed is £735 - £100 for each of the PCNs, £60 "Court fee" and the rest is interest - stated in Excels letter*
"The claimant is entitled to claim statutory interest at the rate of 8% persuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 and Fixed costs persuant to CPR 27.14. This includes the fixed costs payable under part 45, namely the appropriate court fee or fees paid by the claimant"


I was not the driver of the car on any of these occasions, other people had access to my car. I am being persued as Keeper of the Vehicle.

I have received letters here and there over the past couple of years regarding the PCNs but I am ashamed to say I just ignored and binned them (followed incorrect advice) so I have no record of dates I received any NTKs etc, which I am aware may put my defence in a weak position.

I received a letter from Excel parking towards the end of August this year, simply stating "Please find enclosed detailed Particulars of Claim, a copy has been filed to The Court"

I was surprised as I had never received a letter prior to court action, where they informed me they would be taking me to court (?Notice of intention for court action)

So I responded to The Court by acknowledging the claim and deferring my defence by 28 days due to having a very busy work schedule.
It will be 28 days at the end of next week and so I urgently need to draft a defence.

Im unsure where I stand in regards to me ignoring the letters, as I dont have evidence of dates of letters etc to show the judge.

Could I ask Excel to provide evidence of these letters in court, with proof of postage/delivery? (Is there not an onus on them to prove I ever received letters - they were never signed for etc)

Looking at previous Court hearings, Excel do not seem to rely on POFA to persue their claim, is this still the case in any recent hearings? - if I am stating I was not the driver on any of these occasions, will the judge dismiss the case on the ruling of "no contract" ?

Thankyou in advance for any help at all

[des8]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

hi and welcome.
I'm not the one to advise on parking matters but would suggest you post up the "Particulars of Claim" as no defence can be drafted without knowledge of the actual claim

[tweety]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

Thanks Des8
have attempted to attach particulars of claim

[des8]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

[MENTION=5553]charitynjw[/MENTION] ?any ideas??

[ostell]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

Have a look at the Parking Prankster for some info about Peel. If I recall correctly Excel were hammered by a judge for the quality of their signs.

[charitynjw]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

Hi

Peel Centre seems to be one of the most controversial sites in the country.

With regards to the PoC, which of the terms were breached on each discrete occasion?
The Particulars should give the relevant info; they don't.

Was this claim issued via MCOL?

[tweety]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

thanks charitynjw,

the breaches were I think for failure to display ticket, but no the POC doesnt state this.

Yes claim issued via MCOL

[charitynjw]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

I am being persued as Keeper of the Vehicle.

The PoC states 'responsible as driver &/or RK' so hedging their bets.
But to transfer liability to the RK they must show that they have adhered to the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch 4.
Unless they can do so, they can only pursue the driver.
& you are under no legal obligation to disclose the driver's ID.
See http://nebula.wsimg.com/ab774da5f40c5d7082d483820e2241cb? AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&all oworigin=1
which outlines the judge's reasoning.
(Small Claims judgments are not precedents, but they can be used as 'persuasive').

[charitynjw]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

the breaches were I think for failure to display ticket, but no the POC doesnt state this.

Exactly.
It (PoC) should.

Contents of the particulars of claim

16.4
(1) Particulars of claim must include –
(a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part16
In my opinion their PoC does not satisfy this.
It should give details of the precise breach relevant to each alleged contravention.

[tweety]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

BEHINDBLUEEYES (Defendant)

________________________________________
I am the defendant and I deny any money owed to Excel Parking in respect of this claim.

I admit to being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (xxxx) on the dates the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued; however, I deny that I was the driver on any of these occasions. This is relevant because the contract Excel Parking are relying on for the basis of the claim, exists between them and the driver of the car on those dates.

Barrister Michael Henry Greenslade, an experienced previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, confirmed in 2015 that "It cannot be presumed that the Keeper of a vehicle is also the driver".

The case of Elliot v Loake (1983) is often cited by Excel Parking, however it is a criminal case with forensic evidence, whereby the keeper of the vehicle was also proved to be the driver at the time of an offence (road traffic accident) and thus has no basis upon this case or contract law. This is supported by the ruling of the Judge in Excel Parking v Mr C (Stockport) C8DP37F1, who deemed Elliot v Loake was not relevant in Keeper liability in relation to parking offences.

Another case, The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and The Regions v Holt RTR 309 (Divisional Court, 2000) ruled that the burden of proof was on The Secretary of State to prove that the defendant (Holt) was the driver on the date of the offence, and the burden was not discharged merely by showing that Holt was the keeper of the vehicle.

If Excel Parking wish to rely on ‘Keeper Liability’ and pursue myself as the Keeper for liability of the claim, they are required to adhere strictly to the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012, whereby "Notice To Keeper (‘NTK’)" letters must
1) Arrive within a certain timescale
2) Include mandatory information for The Keeper. If all the information is not present (As detailed in Schedule 4, Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of The POFA 2012) the NTK is invalid.


Upon researching, I have reason to believe Excel were none compliant with the POFA 2012 on the dates of the PCNs in question, therefore they cannot evoke Keeper liability upon myself as a means of claim. I wish to see copies of all documentation Excel claim to have sent to my address in respect to the aforementioned PCNs, with proof of postage.

The Particulars of Claim listed 6 separate dates in which the PCNs were issued, however it is not stated how there has been a breach of contract on any of these occasions, merely "The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land".
This does not allow me sufficient information upon which to submit a defence to.

Further, Excel parking have not provided evidence to substantiate the claim of a breach of contract. For example, photographic evidence that the driver was parked outside marked bays, or photographic evidence the driver had failed to display a pay and display ticket etcetera.

Excel parking have a history of wrongly accusing drivers of not purchasing a ticket due to the Automatic Number Recognition Plate cameras (used to note of the times a car enters and exits the car park) are not linked to the Pay&Display machines themselves, thus if a machine is faulty and does not record a vehicle registration, when the records do not match the ANPR records then a PCN is wrongly issued to the driver on the wrongful accusation of failure to purchase a ticket.
This scenario has been illustrated in previous court cases with Excel Parking (Excel v Ms C, Stockport C8DP36F0) (Excel v Mrs S, Oldham C8DP11F9) and thus if the claim is brought about upon this particular accusation, proof of the ANPR and Pay&Display records for the dates in question should be evidenced, together with a photograph of failure to display a valid ticket on the car dashboard/windowscreen, as proof a technical error has not occured.

________________________________________



I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Behindblueeyes

[Kkkkane]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

Hi this is like my first post ermm Iv just been doin abit of research as I'm having a problem with excel peel car park and came across your post. How have you got on??

im now getting letters from debt collectors and threatening court and how it's now £260!! I'm refusing to pay as I payed my parking iv appealed and they just easily dismissed me. I put £3.00 in the machine for a 2.40 parking for 2-4hours and didn't even get my change then they have the cheek to send me a fine!
I'll go to court and stand my ground I'll probably cry �� �� Cause I'm being blamed for something when Iv genuinely payed.
I just don't know what to do it's proper stressing me out!
��

- - - Updated - - -

Hi this is like my first post ermm Iv just been doin abit of research as I'm having a problem with excel peel car park and came across your post. How have you got on??

im now getting letters from debt collectors and threatening court and how it's now £260!! I'm refusing to pay as I payed my parking iv appealed and they just easily dismissed me. I put £3.00 in the machine for a 2.40 parking for 2-4hours and didn't even get my change then they have the cheek to send me a fine!
I'll go to court and stand my ground I'll probably cry �� ��Cause I'm being blamed for something when Iv genuinely payed.
I just don't know what to do it's proper stressing me out!
��

[charitynjw]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

EXCEL PARKING (Claimant)

-and-

BEHINDBLUEEYES (Defendant)

________________________________________
I am the defendant and I deny any money owed to Excel Parking in respect of this claim.

I admit to being the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question (xxxx) on the dates the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued; however, I deny that I was the driver on any of these occasions. This is relevant because the contract Excel Parking are relying on for the basis of the claim, exists between them and the driver of the car on those dates.

Barrister Michael Henry Greenslade, an experienced previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, confirmed in 2015 that "It cannot be presumed that the Keeper of a vehicle is also the driver".

The case of Elliot v Loake (1983) is often cited by Excel Parking, however it is a criminal case with forensic evidence, whereby the keeper of the vehicle was also proved to be the driver at the time of an offence (road traffic accident) and thus has no basis upon this case or contract law. This is supported by the ruling of the Judge in Excel Parking v Mr C (Stockport) C8DP37F1, who deemed Elliot v Loake was not relevant in Keeper liability in relation to parking offences.

Another case, The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and The Regions v Holt RTR 309 (Divisional Court, 2000) ruled that the burden of proof was on The Secretary of State to prove that the defendant (Holt) was the driver on the date of the offence, and the burden was not discharged merely by showing that Holt was the keeper of the vehicle.

If Excel Parking wish to rely on ‘Keeper Liability’ and pursue myself as the Keeper for liability of the claim, they are required to adhere strictly to the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012, whereby "Notice To Keeper (‘NTK’)" letters must
1) Arrive within a certain timescale
2) Include mandatory information for The Keeper. If all the information is not present (As detailed in Schedule 4, Paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of The POFA 2012) the NTK is invalid.


Upon researching, I have reason to believe Excel were none compliant with the POFA 2012 on the dates of the PCNs in question, therefore they cannot evoke Keeper liability upon myself as a means of claim. I wish to see copies of all documentation Excel claim to have sent to my address in respect to the aforementioned PCNs, with proof of postage.

The Particulars of Claim listed 6 separate dates in which the PCNs were issued, however it is not stated how there has been a breach of contract on any of these occasions, merely "The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land".
This does not allow me sufficient information upon which to submit a defence to.

Further, Excel parking have not provided evidence to substantiate the claim of a breach of contract. For example, photographic evidence that the driver was parked outside marked bays, or photographic evidence the driver had failed to display a pay and display ticket etcetera.

Excel parking have a history of wrongly accusing drivers of not purchasing a ticket due to the Automatic Number Recognition Plate cameras (used to note of the times a car enters and exits the car park) are not linked to the Pay&Display machines themselves, thus if a machine is faulty and does not record a vehicle registration, when the records do not match the ANPR records then a PCN is wrongly issued to the driver on the wrongful accusation of failure to purchase a ticket.
This scenario has been illustrated in previous court cases with Excel Parking (Excel v Ms C, Stockport C8DP36F0) (Excel v Mrs S, Oldham C8DP11F9) and thus if the claim is brought about upon this particular accusation, proof of the ANPR and Pay&Display records for the dates in question should be evidenced, together with a photograph of failure to display a valid ticket on the car dashboard/windowscreen, as proof a technical error has not occured.

________________________________________



I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Signed
Behindblueeyes

Have you filed this? (Sent it to court).
If not, you could add

I request the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for me to fully plead my case else the Claim should stand struck out.
In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimants I will then be in a position to amend my defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

[charitynjw]

Re: Excel Peel Centre - Court Claim

Hi this is like my first post ermm Iv just been doin abit of research as I'm having a problem with excel peel car park and came across your post. How have you got on??

im now getting letters from debt collectors and threatening court and how it's now £260!! I'm refusing to pay as I payed my parking iv appealed and they just easily dismissed me. I put £3.00 in the machine for a 2.40 parking for 2-4hours and didn't even get my change then they have the cheek to send me a fine!
I'll go to court and stand my ground I'll probably cry �� �� Cause I'm being blamed for something when Iv genuinely payed.
I just don't know what to do it's proper stressing me out!
��

- - - Updated - - -

Hi this is like my first post ermm Iv just been doin abit of research as I'm having a problem with excel peel car park and came across your post. How have you got on??

im now getting letters from debt collectors and threatening court and how it's now £260!! I'm refusing to pay as I payed my parking iv appealed and they just easily dismissed me. I put £3.00 in the machine for a 2.40 parking for 2-4hours and didn't even get my change then they have the cheek to send me a fine!
I'll go to court and stand my ground I'll probably cry �� ��Cause I'm being blamed for something when Iv genuinely payed.
I just don't know what to do it's proper stressing me out!
��

Hi

Probably best to start your own thread.
Although cases may appear similar, they tend to proceed differently.
Confusion reigns then.