Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Glitch on December 14, 2024, 02:24:06 pm

Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: mickR on January 06, 2025, 07:45:43 pm
excellent
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: DWMB2 on January 06, 2025, 01:10:06 pm
Good result! Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on January 06, 2025, 01:07:51 pm
Success! Many thanks for your help.

Dear xxx See Above
Re: Parking Charge Notice EPS24473191 (Vehicle: MP19BOV)

Site: Iceland Waltham Cross Customer Car Park
Issue date: 28/11/2024

We refer to correspondence received from you concerning the above numbered Charge Notice.
We have reviewed this case and considered the points raised in your correspondence and can confirm that the Notice has been cancelled with immediate effect and our records in respect of this matter are now closed.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Administration Team
Central Processing Office
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: DWMB2 on December 16, 2024, 03:07:29 pm
The company should appeal if the notice is addressed to them. This puts you in an even clearer position as the company clearly cannot have been driving.

If using b789's template you'll need to change any first person 'I' references to 'we'/'the company'.

As the keeper is a company, I'd be minded to beef up the point about them assuming the keeper is the driver... you could add in something like:

As we, the registered keeper, are a company, you clearly cannot pursue us under an assumption that the registered keeper was the driver, as this would be impossible. You can only pursue us as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, as you have failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period prescribed by PoFA, you are unable to recover any unpaid charges from us.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 16, 2024, 02:50:11 pm
The van is registered to the company.

Should the appeal be in the name of the company? Or a named person in the company?
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 15, 2024, 03:58:25 pm
Yes that comprehensive reply is very helpful.

I'm not intimidated by the small claims process. I've been through it once as a claimant.

The RK is happy to take it all the way.

Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: b789 on December 15, 2024, 01:11:56 pm
When a claim is made, a defence is submitted in response. After reviewing the defence, the Claimant decides whether to proceed.

If the claim progresses, it is transferred to your local county court, where a case management judge reviews it. The judge will assess whether the Claimant has complied with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). If not, the judge may strike out the claim or require the Claimant to submit more detailed Particulars of Claim (PoC).

If everything is in order, the case management judge will set a hearing date and deadlines for both parties to file their Witness Statements (WS), typically 14 days before the hearing, though this can vary. The Claimant must also pay a trial fee (£27) around a month before the hearing date.

The hearing itself can be held in person or remotely via telephone or video link. It is an informal process—not a grand courtroom scene with wigs and gowns. Usually, the hearing takes place in the judge’s chambers, attended only by you, the judge, and the Claimant’s representative. Here’s a short video explaining the process:

https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared

Claimants in these cases often send a "hire-by-the-hour" legal representative who will have received the case "bundle" only the night before, if they're lucky or only an hour or so before if they're not. As a result, they are often unfamiliar with the specifics of the case. The judge will hear both sides, ask questions, and then deliver a decision.

Most of these claims never make it to a hearing. They are often struck out at the allocation stage due to CPR deficiencies in the Claimant’s case, or the Claimant discontinues before having to pay the trial fee. Their hope is that you’ll feel intimidated by the legal process and settle the claim prematurely.

Many people are unaware of how the civil legal process works. They mistakenly believe that being subject to a claim damages their credit record or invites bailiffs to their door. This is not true.

The sums involved in these cases are fixed under the small claims track. Typically, this includes the original PCN amount (£100), a £35 claim application fee, and £50 in fixed legal costs. Claimants often attempt to add a fabricated £70 "debt recovery" or "damages" fee, but most judges disallow this. At worst, if you lose, you would owe around £200.

Even in the rare event that you lose, there is no risk of a County Court Judgment (CCJ) as long as you pay the judgment amount within 28 days. If you do, it is completely expunged and will not appear on your credit record. If unpaid after 28 days, it will remain on your credit file for six years but can still be marked as "satisfied" once paid. However, for CCJs under £600, there is no risk of bailiffs, as pursuing enforcement would cost the Claimant more than they could recover.

Ultimately, very few claims go to a hearing. The vast majority are discontinued.

These claims are worth fighting. Claimants rely on fear and a lack of understanding of the process. These are not criminal matters—they are simple contractual disputes in civil law. Unfortunately, many people conflate civil claims with criminal cases, fearing criminal records or fines. This misconception, likely fostered by a lack of education about the legal system, couldn’t be further from the truth.

As for the final part of your question, the defence serves as the "hook" for your later Witness Statement (WS). The defence must respond to the Particulars of Claim (PoC) submitted by the Claimant, which are, in over 99% of cases, woefully inadequate. This inadequacy makes it easy to highlight their shortcomings and potentially have the claim struck out. The defence and accompanying draft order we provide require the Claimant to submit full and detailed PoC, which they often find nearly impossible to produce. However, even if they manage to comply, you will have the opportunity to submit a revised and comprehensive defence, incorporating additional factors such as unloading, signage, bay markings, lack of payment, and other relevant issues. These will then be further developed and expanded upon in your WS.

Bulk litigators rely on the majority of their victims being ignorant of the law and their rights. They do not want their claims to go to trial before a judge, who will likely see through their failings and abuse of the legal system, often resulting in a metaphorical spanking. Unfortunately, of the 41,000 PCNs issued daily (yes... a day!) by unregulated private parking companies, the vast majority are paid at the so-called "mugs discount" rate. Many others are challenged through appeal processes that are far from independent. Hundreds of thousands of these cases proceed to a claim, but only a small number of defendants—those who seek proper advice from us or the MSE forums—go on to defeat these claims with a well-prepared defence. For those we assist, the success rate is over 99%.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 15, 2024, 09:46:45 am
So how do these normally pan out?

When it goes down the small claims route does it require an appearance in front of a judge?
Do Excel turn up to defend it?
 
Is it only at court do the other factors (unloading, signage, bay marking, no payment, etc) come into play?
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: b789 on December 14, 2024, 04:37:01 pm
Doesn't matter. Just send the suggested appeal. It is going to be rejected and the IAS is not worth appealing to. This will eventually be resolved in the small claims track of the county court, the ultimate dispute resolution service.

There is the drivers statement that a parking operative advised they could stop at the location. There is ample case law that shows that unloading/loading is not parking and there is no way that sign is capable conforming a contract.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 14, 2024, 04:09:47 pm
No ticket on the screen.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 14, 2024, 04:03:26 pm

Ah, I'm checking with the driver. I may have made a wrong assumption. He only gave me the NTK.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: mickR on December 14, 2024, 03:35:28 pm
@b789 I was basing my assumption there was NTD on Glitch's comments that the driver "came back to a ticket"
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: b789 on December 14, 2024, 03:25:56 pm
Quote from: mickR on December 14, 2024, 02:43:34 pm
Im sure this will be one of @b789's standard responses with no keeper liability oh and sh!t signage for starters.

Just to confirm, was there a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD) attached to the vehicle when you returned to is after delivering whatever it was you deliver? You have not shown us this NtD. Why not?

If an NtD was issued and you have show us the postal Notice to Keeper (NtK), then based on the dates alone, they Keeper of the vehicle cannot be liable. Only the driver is liable and Excel have no idea who the driver was. The Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver.

Not that Excel will accept any appeal, but you have to go through the motions. Appeal with the following for now:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Excel has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Excel have no hope at IAS, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Oh yeah... and the signs are "sh!t".
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: mickR on December 14, 2024, 02:43:34 pm
Im sure this will be one of @b789's standard responses with no keeper liability oh and sh!t signage for starters.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 14, 2024, 02:36:30 pm

No correspondence with Excel.
Title: Re: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Forest - Outside marked bay
Post by: mickR on December 14, 2024, 02:33:20 pm
so you've so far recived a windscreen ticket (NTD) and a postal Notice to keeper (NTK)
neither of which appear to relying on pofa for keeper liability.

Have you contacted Excel at all? if so post up what you've sent them.
Title: Excel Parking Iceland Waltham Cross - Parked beyond to bay markings
Post by: Glitch on December 14, 2024, 02:24:06 pm
I have raised this on behalf of a friend.
Annoyingly the discount period had expired.

The driver of the van was delivering goods to a nearby cafe.
He chatted to the parking attendant and was given permission to stop there for a few minutes.
The driver came back to a ticket which strangely says 86) parked beyond to bay markings
He did not buy a ticket as he had permission to stop there for a few minutes.

The bays are not clearly marked. The paint is very faded.
Luckily GSV goes right into the car park HERE (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6851754,-0.0323102,3a,65.4y,21.34h,77.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saXx4XXrdt04-ABqdIpwotQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D12.96510196935347%26panoid%3DaXx4XXrdt04-ABqdIpwotQ%26yaw%3D21.34108970476189!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)


(https://i.ibb.co/rkb2GP4/IMG-2751.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8MzgD36)
(https://i.ibb.co/MgRkNx8/IMG-2752.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K59xypN)

(https://i.ibb.co/XSjstnz/a-Hlp-N3-Vh-TTgy-ZDFMNDd-PQ0sz-ZEx-Sd-HVBOUV4-Mm-M0el-V6-MC93-N29k-TVRWd-HZp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R4-R.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZWG8xQh)
(https://i.ibb.co/QkH5H27/c2x-Mb-XVj-Qn-ZBd0-ZGc-UNDV1-V4-ZUU0-UDBCd-Xhl-R2l-JR3-Ey-Rm-ZJZHd-ZMmdk-Tn-Zp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5kj7jNX)
(https://i.ibb.co/W6G2hVf/Mjcvb-Wtx-ZE1-ST0x-FYUh-QUHd2-Vl-Ar-TXU2-Zm-Vu-S0-Rw-THNp-UG1-Gd-DNIMnl-WQn-Zp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/s2bVfWq)
(https://i.ibb.co/W6jpQrq/Q1-VDZG9rc2di-Vj-Zh-N1-BOVEx-CS21-XZWRu-QWgyc-HRNc-E8ye-Wt-OWDVmd-EN1d-HZp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R4-Rld.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HV3p0c1)
(https://i.ibb.co/yFJrr49/UEV1-ZE1-Ya-FVWK0c2dz-Ayb2cz-Nkw3-WUll-Y0-Z0amtq-WGVBNDZydk1o-K1oy-Tn-Zp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R4-Rldpb.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xqQNNFk)
(https://i.ibb.co/LhDHsKk/Uj-Fua-VB4-T2-Nk-Snd-TNj-FISkt-Ldn-FOb-FZk-K3-ZZOUUw-Yz-Uw-MEd-UNnp2-Qz-Vn-NXZp-T3k3-T0-Mrd-Xp3-Mk-R.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CspDSL1)