Hi all,
I’m looking for some advice regarding a County Court claim I’ve received from Excel Parking Services Ltd, relating to an alleged overstay at Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park, Leeds, on 4 November 2025.
I’ve now filed an Acknowledgment of Service and indicated that I intend to defend the claim in full. I haven’t submitted my defence yet.
I’ve also submitted a SAR to Excel and have now received their response, so I have a much clearer picture of what happened.
Timeline of the parking event
Excel’s ANPR records show:
* ANPR entry: 12:52:53
* Parking purchased: 12:55–13:55
* Paid duration: 1 hour
* ANPR exit: 14:10:44
* Total ANPR presence: 1hr 17m 51s
The alleged contravention is:
“Parked after the expiry of the time purchased.”
The original Parking Charge was £100, with a £60 discounted amount.
The County Court claim is now for £255, consisting of a £170 principal amount plus £35 court fee and £50 legal representative’s costs.
I appreciate that the ANPR exit time is approximately 15 minutes 44 seconds after the purchased parking period expired, so I am not suggesting that the vehicle left within a 10-minute grace period.
However, I would appreciate advice on whether the circumstances surrounding the departure and the distinction between ANPR site-presence time and actual parking time have any relevance.
Circumstances when leaving
It had been raining heavily and the car park was muddy.
When I returned to the vehicle, my footwear/clothing was wet and muddy and some time was spent at the vehicle dealing with this/changing before I was able to leave.
I appreciate that this isn’t automatically a defence to a parking charge. I’m mentioning it because the ANPR exit timestamp records when the vehicle passed the exit camera rather than necessarily establishing the exact point at which I returned to the vehicle/ceased parking.
I’d appreciate people’s views on whether this has any relevance to the grace-period issue.
The vehicle was a hire vehicle
This is potentially the part I’m most interested in getting advice about.
I was not the registered keeper. The vehicle was a hire vehicle.
The SAR shows that Excel originally obtained the registered keeper details and sent a Notice to Keeper to the hire company on 11 November 2025.
The hire company contacted Excel on 17 November 2025 and stated that they were the hire company and provided Excel with the hire agreement/details of the hirer.
Excel’s records subsequently show a liability transfer being accepted on 27 November 2025.
Excel then generated a Hirer Notification/Notice to Hirer dated 28 November 2025, addressed to me.
The SAR identifies me as:
Type: Hirer
Source: Liability Notifier
I would particularly appreciate somebody knowledgeable about Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, paragraphs 13 and 14, looking at whether Excel correctly established hirer liability.
I have the hire agreement, Notice to Keeper, Notice to Hirer and the SAR documentation available (with personal information redacted).
I never received the previous correspondence
Another issue is that the County Court Claim Form was the first correspondence about this parking charge that actually came to my attention.
I did not receive:
* the Notice to Hirer;
* subsequent parking charge correspondence;
* debt collection correspondence; or
* a Letter Before Claim.
Until the County Court Claim Form arrived, I was completely unaware that this parking charge was being pursued.
The SAR does show that Excel generated a Notice to Hirer dated 28 November 2025 and addressed it to the address they held for me.
I’m therefore not claiming that Excel definitely didn’t send it – only that I did not receive it.
I’d appreciate advice on whether the absence of any correspondence actually being received before proceedings has any relevance, particularly regarding the pre-action process.
The additional £70
The original Notice to Hirer shows a parking charge of £100.
However, the Particulars of Claim now seek a principal sum of £170, before adding the £35 court fee and £50 legal representative’s costs.
I’d appreciate advice on whether/how the additional £70 should be challenged in the defence.
Where I am now
I’ve:
* filed the Acknowledgment of Service;
* indicated that I intend to defend the whole claim;
* obtained the SAR from Excel;
* not admitted the claim;
* not submitted my defence yet; and
* not contacted Elms Legal by telephone.
I’m currently trying to establish whether I have a worthwhile defence before submitting anything further.
My main questions are:
1. Has Excel complied with POFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 13/14 sufficiently to establish liability against me as the hirer?
2. Is there anything missing from the Notice to Hirer/hire documentation that I should specifically look for?
3. Does the fact that ANPR records exit at 14:10:44 necessarily establish that the vehicle remained “parked” until that time?
4. Does the heavy rain/muddy conditions and time required at the vehicle before departure have any relevance to the grace-period argument?
5. Does the fact that I received none of the correspondence prior to the County Court Claim Form assist me at all?
6. Should the additional £70 above the original £100 parking charge be challenged?
7. Based on the above, would experienced posters here consider this worth defending?
I can upload the relevant documents with personal information redacted, including:
* County Court Claim Form
* Notice to Keeper
* Hire agreement
* Notice to Hirer
* ANPR photographs
* payment record
* SAR/status log
Any help with identifying the strongest defence points would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Odd that you have not received any of the letters, but lucky you got the one that really counts! Do you have other postal issues?
With their NTH they should have sent the additional documentation required by POFA, any sign that this was done in the SAR documentation?
Post up the documentation, there may be other shortcomings or places they have tripped up.
You might as well defend it, worst case you lose and pay the amount they are claiming anyway!
Thanks for the reply,
no other postal issues as far as I'm aware, in terms of the POFA:
POFA / Notice to Hirer: Excel's SAR contains the Notice to Hirer, the original Notice to Keeper and the hire-company documentation separately. However, I cannot see anything demonstrating that the documents required by POFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 13 and 14 were actually enclosed with the Notice to Hirer when it was sent to me.
I never received the NTH, so I cannot confirm what was enclosed. Would this mean Excel should be put to strict proof that the required documents accompanied the NTH before they can rely on POFA to establish hirer liability?
I'm unsure of which way to direct my defence so any feedback is greatly appreciated!