Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Anxious Parker on September 28, 2024, 10:21:05 pm

Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on August 09, 2025, 07:31:33 am
Excellent. A judge with a clear understanding of the rubbish PoC that are clogging up the system.

This has taken almost 9 months from the date the LoC was issued. The CNBC managed to derail it all when they allowed the claimant to request a judgment in default and then had to scurry and get that CCJ set aside using their administrative powers, only after you had to complain to them about it.

Finally, the claim was defended using the short defence and the court has seen fit to strike out the claim for the defective PoC, which should really be the case for any claim issued by the incompetents at DCB Legal.

I repeat the courts 'upon' order here for the delectation of others:

Quote
ORDER OF THE COURT'S OWN MOTION

UPON REVIEWING THE COURT FILE

UPON The Court noting that CPR 16.4 imposes a mandatory requirement that a Particulars of Claim must include a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies

UPON the Court being of the view that the Particulars of Claim in this case are defective under CPR 16.4 because they

1. Describe the alleged breach as "Failure to purchase the parking tariff for the registration mark of the vehicle on site and/or within the time allowed," which means that the Defendant does not know whether the case they have to meet is (a) they didn't pay for parking at all; or (b) they paid for only part of, but not all, the time they were on site (in which case entry and departure times ought to be specified if available through ANPR records); or (c) they made a payment but did not enter the correct registration; or (d) they paid for parking but did not make payment within the time limit required ( in which case the question arises as to how late they were in paying and what loss if any was sustained)

UPON the Court being mindful of the need to conduct bulk litigation at proportionate cost, but being of the view that this does not override the need for a Defendant to know from the outset the factual case they have to answer.

UPON the Court being satisfied it is proportionate to make the Order set out below

ORDER

1. Pursuant to CPR 3.4 the Claim is struck out
2. As this Order was made without a hearing any party may apply to set aside vary or discharge it within 7 days of being served with it

Not withstanding the above, they would have discontinued anyway, as is their M.O. However, it is always much more satisfying when their claim is struck out instead.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on August 08, 2025, 05:00:55 pm
Dear Hero Member

I received the attached Order which struck out the claim ... providing Excel don't apply to set aside, vary or discharge within 7 days I understand noting is now owed.

Thank you for all your help.

Regards
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on July 26, 2025, 04:24:09 pm
The link is in my signature. If you feel you can contribute to the consultation, then you should definitely engage.

For anyone wanting to see the kind of response that I have submitted, feel free to extract whatever you like for it here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7culsz4smpjqijf6lr2y4/MHCLG-Consultation-response.pdf?rlkey=ppthsdnot74sd9z90ivt4bnx9&st=q4g12751&dl=0
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: DWMB2 on July 26, 2025, 08:55:29 am
If you have feelings on the matter, you should respond in your capacity as a motorist
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on July 25, 2025, 10:02:47 pm
Hi Hero Member

I received a notice (dated 10 days ago) advising me my PCN case has now been transferred to my local county court where it will be allocated.

On the radio I heard the government is running a consultation into private parking and are looking for citizen participation - are you aware and are comments collectively been made by FTLA or would it be better individuals like myself make comment:

https://consult.communities.gov.uk/off-road-parking-team/private-parking-code-of-practice-consultation/

Thanks

Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on July 07, 2025, 03:10:39 pm
Thank you again.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: jfollows on July 07, 2025, 02:52:50 pm
The mediator is not a legal professional, you offer £0 and that’s that. Do not get drawn into any discussion of your defence, and if the mediator tries then make a formal complaint afterwards. The mediator will pass on your offer, tell you it’s been declined, end of session. Box ticking exercise so that someone can say they tried.
I can’t see it lasting very long, presumably the 3 hours is just a window because they don’t work to schedules that the normal world does.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on July 07, 2025, 02:48:04 pm
Dear Hero Member

Fortunately I received a text reminder from GovUK to say I had a mandatory mediation appointment tomorrow. When the email from HM Courts & Tribunal service was sent I was away. I do not recall reading the advisory email but here I am 4 weeks on and find it in my mailbox.

The mediator has my phone number as I provided my contact details on the N180 Directions questionnaire. The Mediation Confirmation email says it will be a telephone mediation session between 13.30 to 16.30 lasting about one hour. The mediator will try to help you both come to an agreement before the case goes to court.

Do you have any suggestions to prepare for the mediation appointment regarding this PCN I received from Excel Parking?

Apologies for seeking assistance so close to mediation.

Thanks again in advance.

Regards
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on April 09, 2025, 07:47:17 pm
Thank you.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on April 09, 2025, 06:54:24 pm
Sorry. I only specialise in parking related matters, However, here is the advice for your N180:

Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:

• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".

• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".

• C1: "YES"

• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question
.."

• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option

• F3: "1".

• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.

When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on April 09, 2025, 05:47:20 pm
You're a rare voice of reason in this crazy world - like a McKenzie Friend fighting inappropriate PCNs - thank you.

I had a quick look at the N180 form. There are a lot of boxes that I'm not sure what to put in them - wondering when it arrives do you have a suggested way to complete?

On an unrelated money dispute issue I have been sent an N181 to complete - do you provide support on other groups or is there a way I could contact you directly - I need to find help filling out forms so my defence gets through to a hearing.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on April 09, 2025, 01:03:27 pm
That's good news. You are back to where you were just after submitting your defence. You are now waiting for the copy of the claimants N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ).

When you complete that form, you will put your local county court as the location. Any hearing (doubtful it will ever get that far) is always at the defendants local county court.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on April 09, 2025, 12:45:43 pm
Hi Hero Member

After several calls and emails to MCOL I visited Wakefield County Court today and was provided with the General form of judgment or order ' It is ordered that the judgment against xxxxxx is hereby set aside'.

I guess the claim is still there but now my defence is on file. I would like to know how I can get the claim out of County Court Money Claims Centre to Wakefield Country Court as they are walking distance I hope it might be easier to communicate in person rather than the combination of email/MCOL/Royal Mail.

Thanks again for your support.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on March 28, 2025, 12:26:52 pm
Please let us know the response you get to that letter you have sent to the CNBC and any corrective order issued by a judge.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on March 27, 2025, 11:25:19 pm
Dear Hero Member

Thank you again for your reply. I appreciate your understanding of the gravity that a default CCJ has when issued.

Comparatively the CNBC staff were flippant. Sadly the court process being difficult to navigate and staff unhelpful are further additional factors that leads customers to pay PCNs rather than challenge.

Regards
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on March 26, 2025, 02:52:36 pm
So, the defence was not registered but you have proof of having sent it. You now need to send an email to the CNCB with the following:

That CCJ MUST be reversed by the CNBC if the Judgment date is after the date you emailed the defence.

Send a complaint email immediately to the CNBC attaching the proof of emailing the defence and getting the acknowledgment BEFORE judgment was entered.

DO NOT ACCEPT BEING TOLD YOU HAVE TO FILL IN AN APPLICATION/PAY A FEE.

I suggest you send the following immediately:

Quote
Subject: Urgent Complaint – Defence Submitted but Ignored; Irregular Default Judgment Must Be Set Aside Without Delay

To: caseprogression.cnbc@justice.gov.uk
Cc: claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk

Date: [Insert today’s date]

Dear Sirs,

Re: Formal Complaint Regarding Irregular Default Judgment

Claim Number: [Insert claim number]
Claimant: [Insert claimant's name]
Defendant: [Insert your full name]

I am writing to raise an urgent and formal complaint regarding the failure of the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) to process a defence that was duly filed within the permitted time, resulting in the unlawful entry of a default County Court Judgment (CCJ) against me on 20th March 2025.

The chronology of relevant events is as follows:

• The claim was issued on 11th February 2025.
• I filed an Acknowledgement of Service via MCOL on 17th February 2025.
• I submitted my fully prepared Defence by email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk at 09:43 on 17th February 2025, well within the deadline.
• I received your automatic acknowledgement response at 09:44 on 17th February 2025, confirming receipt of my submission.
• I received no communication from the court until 25th March 2025, when I was shocked to discover that a default CCJ had been entered on 20th March 2025, supposedly on the basis that no defence had been filed.

This default judgment is irregular and must be set aside immediately. The facts are clear: a defence was submitted in time and acknowledged by your systems, but was not processed through no fault of my own. The consequence of this clerical failure is a highly prejudicial court judgment that now appears on the public register and has already caused me considerable distress.

I refer you to an almost identical case in which His Honour Judge Etherington issued the following Order on 7th March 2025:

“Upon the Defendant having filed a Response but the Court Office not processing it;

Upon the Court entering Judgment on 4th March 2025

IT IS ORDERED:

The Judgment be set aside because the Defendant had filed a Response prior to the Court entering Judgment
...

REASONS:
The Judgment was entered at a time when the Defendant had filed a Response.
The Judgment is therefore irregular and must be set aside”

This precedent should be applied to my case without delay and without the need for an N244 application or the payment of any fee. The fault lies squarely with the CNBC and the irregular judgment must be corrected administratively.

I hereby demand that:

• The irregular default judgment be set aside immediately by administrative order.
• A certificate of cancellation be issued without delay.
• Written confirmation be provided that this matter has been corrected.
• An explanation be provided as to how this failure occurred.
• I am informed of what steps will be taken to prevent this from happening again, as I understand it is not an uncommon occurrence.

Please note that I reserve all rights to claim compensation for the stress and inconvenience this error has caused, and to escalate this matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via my MP if a satisfactory and swift resolution is not provided.

I expect a substantive response within 5 working days.

Yours faithfully,

[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your email address]
[Your phone number]
Claim Number: [Insert again for clarity]


Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on March 26, 2025, 01:33:04 pm
Dear Hero Member

I've attached MCOL screenshot of AofS submitted/received date 17/2/25
I vaguely recall submittint the AofS via the MCOL website (I didn't email it the CNBC)

I didn't see a way to add the defence via MCOL and your instructions to email claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk sit well with me being able to keep track of what I've sent and recieve replies to. This is what I sent:

'On 17 Feb 2025, at 09:43, 'I' wrote:

Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v xxxx xxxxxxx Claim no.: xxxxxxxx

20250211ExcelParkingPCNClaimDEFENCE.pdf
20250211ExcelParkingPCNDraftOrder(Strikeout).pdf

Reply I received back ...

On 17 Feb 2025, at 09:44, ClaimResponses.CNBC <ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk> wrote:

Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days
 
 
When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B
 
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b
 
Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.
 
I had only sent (copied from you) my defence and draft order. Although I had completed the N9B I didn't include this in the attachment at the time and wonder now if this is where I failed to progress the process as I should. That being said the MCOL entry after receipt of AofS states 'A judgment was issued against you on 20/03/2025 at 19:08:12' NOT something along the lines of info received but more info required.

Yesterday morning I waited 48 minutes to speak with CNBC help processor who hung up after less than a minute. I forward my email of 17 Feb 2025 and CNBC acknowledgment.

Yesterday afternoon calling back I waited 1 hour 27minutes to speak with a CNBC help processor who again hung up after a couple or so minutes but did call back to say, 'email in all the information putting in title line mark *Unprocessed*'. I tried to explain I am very anxious the CNBC instructions contradict what you're saying ie only one email will be processed. The operator said I was not listening/confused ... I emailed 'the claim, the AofS, N9B form, Defence and draft order'.

I am concerned none of the emails will be considered in particular the last email as I have sent more than one email.

Asking the CNBC if Judgment for Claimant (in default) means I will next have a bailiff banging on the door was told I need to seek legal advice but there are steps in between now and Bailiff at door. Could you please advise what these are and if you feel I have done the wrong thing sending emails as CNBC instructed me to do.

Thanks again for you assistance.





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on March 25, 2025, 05:36:39 pm
On what date did you submit the AoS? On what date did you submit your defence? You say you received an acknowledgment email from the CNBC system. Please confirm.

What exactly does your MCOL history show? Do not try and paraphrase it. Copy and paste it here.

This will not be the first time that the CNBC have screwed this up. When you have answered the questions above I will advise on how to deal with this.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on March 25, 2025, 03:37:44 pm
Hi Hero Member

Although I emailed the reply you had provided I received back the following:

20250320JudgmentForClaimantExcelParkingRedacted.pdf

I have emailed back CNBC asking why when I emailed them my defence and they emailed back acknowledged receipt of my defence email, I was then sent a Judgment for Claimant ordering I pay £287.28 (debt plus interest).

As CNBC did not email asking for further information I assumed what I sent was appropriate - but at the very least it was recieved which is very different to the Judgment of 'You have not replied to the claim form'

On the MCOL website I also tried to enter an order to have the judgment set aside but until fee of £303 is paid I am unable to submit that the court have acknowledged receipt of email I sent.

Is there anything else I can do?

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on February 17, 2025, 09:44:02 am
Thank you again for all your help.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on February 16, 2025, 11:08:38 am
My bad... With an issue date of 11th February, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd March to submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). By submitting an AoS, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 17th March to submit your defence. If you do not submit an AoS, then you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd March to submit the defence.

(I must get myself an easier to read calendar!)
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: jfollows on February 16, 2025, 10:32:44 am

With an issue date of 11th February, you have until 2nd March to submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). By submitting an AoS, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th March to submit your defence. If you do not submit an AoS, then you have until 4pm on Monday 17th March to submit the defence.
I think your second date is wrong?
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on February 15, 2025, 11:38:35 am
This is the only bit we need to see:

(https://i.imgur.com/2zeyClR.jpeg)

Chuck all the other forms in the bin.

With an issue date of 11th February, you have until 2nd March to submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). By submitting an AoS, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th March to submit your defence. If you do not submit an AoS, then you have until 4pm on Monday 17th March to submit the defence.

If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0

Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you send both documents as PDF attachments in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Excel Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

[Claimant]

Claimant

- and -

Excel Parking Services Ltd


Defendant



DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather
than permitting an amendment.

5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on February 15, 2025, 08:12:07 am
Dear Hero Member

Please find Claim Form attached. Issue Date: 11 Feb 2025.

Thanks again

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on February 14, 2025, 12:17:31 am
You were not obliged to fill in or even respond to DCB Legal’s forms. It was not an appeal form but a Letter of Claim (LoC) which gave you 30 days to pay or they would issue a claim, which they have now done.

Please show the N1SDT Claim Form (we do not need to see all the other paperwork that came with it and you can discard them). Redact only your personal info, the claim number and the MCOL password. Make sure all dates and times remain visible.

What is the issue date of the claim?
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on February 14, 2025, 12:04:48 am
Dear Hero Member

Rather than obvious subject headed DBL ref: x or from email DBL one was emailed from Lorraine Boardman.
I had asked the form be sent unfortunately they emailed and I missed it.

Two forms were attached for completion:

DCB LEGAL FINANCIAL AND AFFORDABILITY INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT [Am I required to disclose my financial information?]

And

REPLY FORM
YOU HAVE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE AT THE TOP OF THE ENCLOSED LETTER TO FILL IN AND
RETURN THIS FORM. IF YOU DON’T, IT COULD RESULT IN COURT PROCEEDINGS.

The closest box to why I shouldn’t pay is:
BOX D
I dispute the debt.
Tick this box if you don’t owe the debt, for example because the debt should be paid by someone else,
because you have already paid it, or because there is a legal problem with the credit agreement.
I dispute the debt because ……………
Explain on a separate piece of paper why you dispute the debt. Give as much detail as possible and provide
copies of any supporting documents.
NOW GO TO SECTION 4.

SECTION 4: What documents are you sending with this form? What information do you need?
Complete the boxes below if you want to provide or get more information.

To arbitrator I wrote ‘Should this appeal be rejected, I am fully prepared to defend this matter in court, where I
will require Excel Parking to substantiate their claims with proper evidence of record logs
from and including 26 September 2023 through to and including 28 August 2024, showing
the VRM’s where only the 1st or 1st and 2nd characters of VRM’s are on data log, instead of
other 6 VRM’s entered after 1st character.’

I have now received a Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre totalling  £260.84 (Claim of £170, interest, court fee & legal costs)

Having failed to complete DBLs two forms have I lost the battle or is there a way I complete the Claim Form to try to get out of the total amount?

Could I attach the reply form late saying not completed previously ‘cos missed as not sent by mail and ask for copies of record logs from and including 26 September 2023 through to and including 28 August 2024, showing the VRM’s where only the 1st or 1st and 2nd characters of VRM’s are on data log, instead of other 6 VRM’s entered after 1st character?

Once again your help is greatly appreciated
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on December 12, 2024, 03:36:19 pm
Thank you
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on December 12, 2024, 12:38:00 pm
Email them at info@dcblegal.co.uk the following response:

Quote
I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[MY ADDRESS]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists". Don't send me your usual blather about that.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

It's not going to stop them issuing the claim but their response will add to the mounting evidence that they are defrauding HMRC out of their VAT obligations. When they respond, you simply report them to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud, which takes minutes online.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on December 11, 2024, 06:50:02 pm
Dear Hero Member (b789)

Per your entries above I am back as I have received a letter of claim (attached) from dcblegal.

Please advise what I do next.

Thanks again

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on October 09, 2024, 02:13:50 pm
Thanks again.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on October 09, 2024, 12:54:32 pm
It's an exercise in futility. I really don't know why you're bothering with the IAS.

No one pays Excel and an IAS rejection has zero bearing on anything going forward. You're wasting effort and stressing abut something that has almost no chance of being successful when dealing with this mafia.

Get on with your life until, if/when they send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). Everything else until then, especially any reminders or Debt Recovery Agent (DRA) letters can be safely ignored. Never, ever, ever communicate with a DRA. We don't want to know about their scary letters. They can be safely ignored as they are powerless to do anything except scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on October 09, 2024, 12:10:12 pm
Apologies for late reply ... only just realised you'd added another post thank you.

IAS wrote ...

Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 03/10/2024 15:33:23.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 28/08/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 28/08/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
1. The Crown Street car park is private land and motorists are allowed to enter it to park
their vehicle provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.
2. The signage on site states ‘You must ensure the FULL AND ACCURATE VEHICLE
REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making payment'. The
signage also states “A Parking Charge Notice of £100 will be issued for the following: Failure
to make payment within 10 minutes of entry to the car park/private land; Not registering the
full and accurate VRM when making payment”.
3. Site photos and the site map supplied show that signage can be seen at the entrance
and throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that the EPS signage onsite,
including its wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed audit,
complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit for purpose.
4. There are 2 ticket machines onsite, one pay by card and one pay by cash and Pay By
phone and online payment facilities are available at this car park via the Parkonomy and
YourParkingSpace Apps.
5. Management of the car park is conducted by ANPR cameras, which take photographs of
vehicle registration numbers as vehicles enter and leave the car park. The VRM images are
compared with tickets purchased at the P&D machines or by phone and any vehicle that
remains on the car park for 10 minutes and fails to purchase a valid P&D ticket or make a
valid payment by phone is issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
6. The ANPR cameras record the time of a vehicle's entry and exit from the car park and the
images supplied show that the appellant's vehicle entered the car park at 19:43:57 and
exited at 22:38:21; a duration of 2hr 54min 24sec.
7. Payment data supplied, taken from the database of tickets purchased at the Crown
Street car park on the date of contravention shows that no payment was made for the
appellant's full and accurate VRM during the 10 minutes consideration period granted to
the appellant upon entering the car park. The data shows a payment made at 19:48 for the
VRM ‘G'. This is confirmed as the appellant's purchase by the supplied P&D ticket with the
appellant's submission. The data shows that other motorists were paying to park for the full
and accurate VRM throughout the period in question confirming that machine was in
working order.
8. It should be noted that all ticket machines are fitted with a cancel button. If pressed at
any point (before pressing the green button to print the P&D ticket), any money inserted will
be refunded allowing the user to correct mistakes, use another P&D machine or leave the
car park if they did not wish to proceed with the purchase. It should be further noted that
the digital display on the ticket machine has an LED display illuminated with a green light;
as the buttons on the machine are pressed, the relevant information is displayed on that
panel. The information displayed, whether during daylight or hours of darkness, clearly
shows a motorist whether or not they have entered their correct VRM.
9. It is not unreasonable to expect a motorist to check the validity of any ticket they
purchase and to take corrective action if necessary.
10. There is a helpline number located at the bottom of all the signage on site which is
available to any motorist who is experiencing difficulties or has any query. This was not
utilised by the appellant.
11. A person can enter into a contract either by expressly agreeing to do so or by acting in
such a way that they can be said to have implied agreement to enter into a contract. Where
notice is given to a motorist of the consequences of parking in a particular area, by
implications a motorist enters into a contract with Excel Parking Services Ltd and accepts
the terms set out in the Notice by proceeding to park. When parking on private land, a
motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for
permission to park. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any clearly
displayed conditions of parking. It is clear that the terms of parking stated that when
purchasing a ticket to park the full and accurate VRM of the vehicle parked on site must be
provided; otherwise the motorist would face liability for a Charge Notice. The adjudicator
will note that the appellant had the opportunity to leave the car park if they could not
comply with the terms of parking.
12. We are not pursuing the Charge Notice on the basis of any company's loss but as a
result of a contractual breach of the Terms and Conditions, observed on the day in
question. Any motorist who familiarised themselves with the signage on site would be
notified of the relevant Charges. Specifically the signage states ‘You must ensure the FULL
AND ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided
when making payment'.
13. The sole purpose of this PCN is to determine the lawfulness of the issue this PCN.
PCN's that may have been issued to other motorists have no relevance to this appeal or the
issuing of this PCN. We reiterate that this PCN was correctly and lawfully issued.
14. We maintain that the terms and conditions of parking were sufficiently brought to the
motorist's attention at the time of the parking event and that the motorist had sufficient
opportunity to make a valid payment for their parking or leave during their consideration
period.
15. The appellant became liable for the Parking Charge Notice issued, as per the Terms and
Conditions displayed by failing to make a valid payment for the vehicle on site within the
consideration period.

Responding to the above I have added to IAS system (TBH I feel too dumb to figure out / fight how the different entities fit together) which appears to go onto the arbitrator:

Inadequate Signage: The signage at the location is insufficiently clear to form a valid
contract with the driver. The lack of definition regarding what constitutes “ensure the FULL
AND ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided
when making payment” and the absence of clear terms explaining that failure of the ticket
to print out the correct VRM, even though payment is taken, would incur a penalty, renders
this alleged contract unenforceable. Excel Parkings’ reliance on ambiguous terms and
unclear signage makes any purported agreement void for uncertainty.
Conclusion:
The driver complied with Excel Parkings’ T&Cs ‘You must ensure the FULL AND ACCURATE
VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARK (VRM) of the vehicle on site is provided when making
payment'.
In addition to this PCN (****), the driver, so far, has evidence of two other drivers
(roodymoops PCN for September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 advised previously) and PCN
(K***M***Appeal your ticket online.pdf) attached, also reporting to Excel Parking in their
PCN appeals they entered their VRMs correctly but the ticketing machine printed out only
the first letter.
Excel Parking are not showing full picture saying ‘9. … The data shows other motorists
successfully paying for their full VRMs and we are therefore satisfied that the machine was
working correctly.’ I have provided declarations from two others I am aware of the machine
is sporadically faulting and Excel Parking’s claim this has not been reported a lie, as the
above three appeals made Excel Parking aware.
In light of the combined lack of clear signage and the absence of any financial loss, this
parking charge is wholly unjustified and renders it unenforceable.
Should this appeal be rejected, I am fully prepared to defend this matter in court, where I
will require Excel Parking to substantiate their claims with proper evidence of record logs
from and including 26 September 2023 through to and including 28 August 2024, showing
the VRM’s where only the 1st or 1st and 2nd characters of VRM’s are on data log, instead of
other 6 VRM’s entered after 1st character.
I trust that the Arbitrator will carefully review the evidence provided and cancel this
unfounded charge.

Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on October 06, 2024, 05:42:37 pm
So, what is the operators case? What did you submit to the IAS as your appeal?

Did they rebut every one of your appeal points? If not, highlight what they have failed to rebut. If it is not rebutted, you should win on that point alone. Then again, this is the IAS you are dealing with.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on October 06, 2024, 05:37:55 pm
Thank you
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: DWMB2 on October 06, 2024, 02:45:18 pm
I can't remember the last time I put in an IAS appeal so I'm probably not much more help, but assuming this is similar to the POPLA evidence stage, you can use the opportunity to pick any holes in the operator's case that you are able to find.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on October 06, 2024, 02:17:33 pm
No idea.

Never bother with pointless IAS appeals.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on October 06, 2024, 12:24:12 pm
Thank you for your advice.

Checking at this stage should I click on IAS option 1 'REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION’?

Just that on the IAS two options option 1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE has 'You have until 10/10/2024 23:59 to submit your response if this is the route you wish to take'.
Option 2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION ... I'm not sure if respond by date also applies as not specified in 2.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on October 06, 2024, 02:00:19 am
Why would you want to pay £100 to a scammer? It’s your money but if you feel aggrieved enough to fight it, then we will assist.

For now, you wil have to ignore the debt collector letters that are going to come your way. They are powerless to do anything and can only try and scare you into paying by using scary words such as “bailiff” and “CCJ”. Their only job is to get the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to capitulate and pay up.

Never, ever, ever communicate with a debt collector. They have now powers and can be safely ignored.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC), come back and we will provide the advice on what to do next.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on October 05, 2024, 08:57:09 pm
As was predicted IAS wrote 'The Operator has provided the evidence above which he says proves that you are, on the face of it, responsible for the parking charge in question.'

Do I take IAS option 1 'REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION’

IAS have uploaded very clear photos of signage and a letter from MyParkingCharge (not previously included in Excel Parking rejection of appeal).

Letter has ‘Appeal Reason: I had a pay and display ticket but may have entered the wrong or incomplete vehicle registration number’

From memory I chose this from a pre-populated drop down selection. Having made this selection does this mean I have to pay £100?

I feel there was more information I entered but not included in the letter, but is mentioned in Excel’s letter of 17/9/24.

I don’t have any further information to add so option 2 ’Submit your response’ is eliminated?

Or

Do I pay the PCN now £100 - this still seems an option Please Help!!!

I can't figure out how to upload any more files - have created a pdf combining documents less photos due to size (includes some info as before - grinding me down doing this - this is goal I guess). How do I send to Administrator - apologies I'm a ludite :(

WHAT DO YOU SUGGGEST I DO PLEASE - Thank you
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on September 29, 2024, 01:53:30 pm
Thank you.

I will send an appeal to IAS (appreciating your comments maybe a waste of time and energy) ...

Does anyone else have info on how to write a successful appeal to IAS?

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: b789 on September 29, 2024, 02:02:35 am
You’re not a “defendant” until you have had a county court claim made against you. Most of what you have shown as your IAS “appeal” is for a defence in court and will not be considered by the IAS.

Whilst I don’t recommend wasting your time on the kangaroo court of the IAS, others will disagree. It is your time and effort, so you can choose to do it or not. The IAS are only going to consider whether the PCN was issued correctly.

They will argue that the terms on the signs state that you must enter the full VRM. For whatever reason, the ticket did not display the full VRM. Not the operators fault. Driver failed to comply with the terms. Contract breached. Keeper owes a debt to Excel if the driver doesn’t pay up.

The only way this will be resolved will be in court. It is at that point that the defence arguments will come into play. There will definitely be CPR 16.4 failures in any claim. There will be the defence that the claim is penal. There will be lots of other arguments.

However, for now, you are not a “defendant”, you are an “appellant”. Good luck if you put any effort into an IAS appeal. I am more than happy to assist if that fails if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) and eventual N1SDT claim in the future.

I’m sure others will assist with an IAS appeal if you are determined to follow that route.
Title: Excel Parking Services Ltd - Incorrect Registration - Leeds Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park
Post by: Anxious Parker on September 28, 2024, 10:21:05 pm
PCN issued 28/08/2024 for Contravention date 20/08/2024 Time of entry 19:43:57 Time of Exit 22:38:21

Via www.myparkingcharge.co.uk I appealed.

Excel Parking letter dated 17/09/2024 rejects appeal.

NEXT Either:
1. Pay the Charge Notice
2. Appeal to IAS

My draft IAS appeal to check it is ok to reference another member. Any additional comments on my appeal to IAS appreciated.

Facts:
I drove into Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park, Leeds, LS2 7DE on 20/08/2024 at 19:43:57.
To pay I used the parking ticketing machine, entering my registration into machine, paid via contact debit card (Appendix H) and the machine printed a ticket at 19.48.
Photographed ticket at 22:34, only ‘G’, the first character of my VRM, was printed not the other 6 (Appendix B).
On https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/excel-parking-services-ltd-incorrect-registration-leeds-crown-street-24hr-pay-ca/msg36629/#msg36629 post by roodymoops on September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 pm describes same problem (Appendix D). Since there are others experiencing the same problem on this site the parking ticket machine must be sporadically faulting.
Focus of evening was to join friends not spend 10 minutes scrutinizing nuances of Excel Parking’s terms and conditions.
Excel Parking’s Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park is my last resort. I recall parking there a total of 5 times.
Excel Parking previously sent a PCN for failing to pay for a ticket within the 10 minute allocated period via Parkonomy at Excel Parking’s Crown Street 24Hr Pay Car Park when their two ticketing machines were out of order (Appendix F).

Grounds for Challenging PCN:
It can be argued that the charge is penal in nature because Excel Parking Services Ltd has not suffered any financial loss.
1. Penalty, Not Compensation: The charge is intended as a penalty rather than compensation for any actual loss.
Since I, the defendant, paid for the parking session and Excel Parking has acknowledged a payment at the relevant time, they have not suffered any financial loss. In the absence of a loss, any charge should be seen as disproportionate and punitive.
Citing the infamous ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] case which allowed certain charges as justified under specific circumstances as it was largely due to the nature of that particular car park (i.e., free parking with a commercial justification). In this case, the charge is disproportionate, as I, the defendant, paid for the parking session and did not overstay or avoid payment.
2. Unenforceable Penalty Clause
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA): The terms imposing the penalty are unfair and thus unenforceable under the CRA.
This includes provisions that create disproportionate financial consequences for minor, technical errors like the failure to fully print a VRM.
Absence of Commercial Justification: Unlike the Beavis case, there is no clear commercial justification for penalising the defendant for a system error when they paid for parking.
3. Proportionality of the Charge
Penalty Principle: Excel Parking's charge is excessive and penal in nature, especially given the minimal error (if any) in the transaction process. Courts generally frown upon penal charges that are not a genuine reflection of a company's loss.
4. Contract
For a contact to be in place there must be a meeting of minds. I did not expect to have to buy an additional ticket as advised by Excel Parking (Appendix C) having entered a correct  VRM, but issued a ticket showing only first character or I would have done so. It is arguable that no contract was in place. As I paid my parking charge, there are no losses.
Excel Parking accepted my money and therefore it is arguable that they accepted the contract anyway, on my terms. I gather, when this happens in business cases this is known as the 'battle of the forms' and the contract may be deemed accepted on the basis of the last proposed terms. Excel Parking accepted the contract knowing the VRM they printed was invalid - after all, the ANPR system knew that the vehicle with the registration their parking ticket machine printed on the ticket was not in the car park. They could therefore have refused to accept my money, but did not. I am left in doubt if Excel Parking ticketing machine matched the VRM but only printed a ticket with the first character. Other parking companies have ticket machines that match VRMs - only accepting valid registrations. There is absolutely no reason, with today’s technology, that Excel Parking do not have a system that will refuse payment for a VRM that has not been registered by ANPR. I believe it is Excel Parking’s responsibility to provide faultless ticket machines to avoid issuing people with fines rather than trip customers up and issue fines regularly.

Basis for considering my appeal against Excel Parking’s rejection of my Appeal (Appendix C):
Excel Parking Letter dated 17/09/2024 states,
‘We note your comment that you did input your vehicle registration but the machine did not print it on the ticket. In those circumstances if you were unable to purchase another ticket or use the alternative method of payment, you should have phoned the helpline.'
Excel Parking thereby assumes:
•   I was aware I had not complied with their Terms and Conditions.
•   I was able to determine the nature of failure of the machine to print the number entered
•   I have a smartphone with sufficient data and reception to pay online or download app or make a phone call or
•   I was able run to the other side of the carpark to check the other car parking ticket machine was working and put money; cash or card within the remaining 5 minute time frame ie within 10 minutes allocated.
Had Excel Parking’s assumptions been correct I would have been discriminated by my limitations:
•   With my osteoarthritis I would not have been able to move at the speed to complete the task.
•   There was insufficient time for me to switch optical wear to read at distance and close up, assuming I had, have the means and know how to use a smart phone to perform tasks stated I should have performed.
•   I cannot process information as quickly as others being dyslexic (note my previous ticket was issued because I failed to eliminate option at two broken parking ticket machines and go on to purchase a ticket online within the 10 minute period).

Conclusion:
I request you forgive the fine after considering;
•   how reasonable/fair it is to expect I can comprehend the functionality of the Excel Parking Ticket machine, who’s responsibility the failings fall to and thus comply with nuances of Excel Parking’s signage Terms and Conditions (Appendix G).
•   I believe I have complied with Excel Parking’s Terms and Conditions.
•   Further evidence that another person, military personel, having used the machine and it failed to provide them with a complete VRM, only printing the first letter, Appendix D, and
•   also Appendix E - Parking Prankster’s analysis of Mr Kelner’s incorrect entry of VRM and PRN.



Appendix A - PCN Issue Date 28/08/2024, Contravention Date/Time 20/08/2024 at 22.38 at Crown Street 24 Hr Pay Car Park Leeds, LS2 7DE
Appendix B – Photo of ticket at 22:34, only ‘G’, the first character of VRM printed
Appendix C - Excel Parking Letter dated 17/09/2024 Rejecting Appeal
Appendix D - Post by roodymoops on September 12, 2024, 05:34:16 pm describes same problem
Appendix E – parking prankster on Mr Kelner incorrect entry of VRM and PRN
Source: https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/08/case-of-century.html
Appendix F – 02/05/2023 PRN issued as too slow
Appendix G – Signage and parking ticket machine photos
Appendix H - Debit card contactless payment confirmation

Due to file size I'm struggling to upload files - please advise which of the Appendices if you need.

Thanks for all help.