Excel/VCS lose in Court (+ Tribunal)

[ChrisT70]

Hokay...time for another boring law lecture from me.

 

Two methods that parking companies can try to enforce these invoices - breach of contract and trespass.

 

Firstly, breach of contract - this is often missed as a defence, but there is no valid contract to breach. A contract requires agreement (offer and acceptance), consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.

 

Offer and acceptance, they could argue by conduct - fair enough. Intent to create legal relations, again, they could argue.

 

The problem they'll face in this, and all free car park cases, is consideration. Each party to a contract must provide, or be expected to provide, some consideration which is of some value. By consideration, we generally mean money. So, if I contract with you to repair my drive, my consideration is that I will pay, yours is the services in repairing. Both have value.

 

Where is the consideration in a free car park? They provide a service, yes. What do you provide. It's a free car park, so nothing. My understanding of this situation is that it's a free car park, so what consideration have any of the users to give?

 

No consideration - no valid contract.

 

Trespass - civil tort, the remedy for which is damages. The point of damages - to put the person wronged in the situation they were in pre-tort, and to compensate for any loss. No one has to pay for this car park, it's not a shop (there are further arguments there), and no one gains, so what's the loss? Nothing. Therefore, no damages.

 

There are loads more arguments, but those are the main two you would need in any defence, not that they'd issue proceedings of course.

 

Interestingly, someone with the username Excel Parking PM'd me on here asking me to stop advising people about the law, and telling me I was wrong. I pointed out my 15 years as a lawyer, and they didn't respond. Shame really. Wish I'd kept that message.

 

fun starts today with us! just received a notice from excel for the broomhill car park for failing to display a valid ticket, for 27mins spent there. has arrived in my name, i for one am in the clear as i can prove i wasnt there and was at work all day. it could have been issued to my wife or father, both of whom drive the car, neither of them know who was driving that day.

the parking charge notice is for an alleged contravention of the terms and conditions of the privately owned car park.

 

they have given me as registered keeper a small slip to return to "help them identify the driver responsible for the charge". obviously i wont be doing so. i have 3 options, one being to confirm i wasnt the driver, one to say it was in the possession of another person, and one to confirm the name of them below! grass!!!

 

if it was the wife, i can put my house on the fact she will have bought a ticket, she always does wherever it is and wouldnt dare not. my father also would have done so, hes very straight up. me, knowing the pcns dont apply, might have been tempted to not pay for a ticket and say sod it, but as it happens i can prove (if it ever went to court!) that i wasnt the driver and we dont legitimately know who the other person was.

 

so, there you go, a first, and will be interesting to see how it pans out, they will definitely see me in court should they decide we are a test case!

[Eckolad]

You wont be a test case.

 

Let us know which *fake solicitor letter* you get.

[Eckolad]

Well guys i am not one to blow my own trumpet

 

But it was my good self who had a good chat with David Walsh, i advised him that most of the judgements were most likely obtained through default and said he could easily check this through the courts, explained how this was how ppc could claim easy wins.

 

I also emailed him the details of the S!!!!horpe and VAT case So at last there has been a full fact story on Excel in the Star

 

Made me smile:)

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/action-desk/excel-parking-plan-to-outsource-legal-work-looks-dead-in-water-1-4578457

 

IS this Excel Parking’s worst ever month?

 

The company has suffered two court drubbings – and in striking out one claim a judge ordered managing director Simon Renshaw-Smith to explain why the firm brought a case for trespass when it had no legal right to do so.

 

Meanwhile, Sheffield County Court has confirmed that a series of names Excel sent to The Star as evidence of the ‘many cases’ it has won were mostly default judgements issued after drivers failed to respond. In such cases the papers don’t even go before a judge.

 

It now seems its ambition to outsource legal work to solicitors around the country, to combat the avalanche of non-payers, could be scuttled.

 

Private parking companies such as Excel generate ill feeling among motorists with tickets demanding £60 or more for breaking rules, backed by threats of debt collectors, bailiffs and court action.

 

The British Parking Association says 69 per cent pay up, but 31 per cent refuse, believing the law doesn’t allow private firms to impose a penalty charge – and the number is rising.

 

In February last year Ron Ibbotson stopped in a car park patrolled by VCS – part of Excel – offering two hours free. He returned after 40 minutes, he says, to find a ticket for £80 payable within seven days.

 

He ignored all threats and phone calls and VCS took him to court. The case went before Judge McIlwaine at Scunthorpe County Court last week.

 

Ron said: “The judge read my defence and spotted something in VCS’s contractual terms and gave their representative a good roasting over it.”

 

The claim was struck out. Mr Renshaw-Smith, boss of VCS, said he responded to the court on Monday advising the firm had lawful authority on behalf of its client.

 

The decision comes after VCS lost an appeal at the Upper Tax Tribunal to keep the VAT on the ‘fines’ it levies.

 

The tribunal said VCS did not have the right to pursue an action for trespass and its Parking Charge Notices were not damages, so VAT must be paid.

 

VCS pays VAT on all PCNs he insisted. If the tribunal hearing had gone in VCS’s favour it would have reclaimed the VAT already paid to HMRC.

 

His legal team were reviewing whether they would continue to launch trespass cases, he added.

 

Last month Excel sent Action Desk details of 23 cases it claimed were proof it can win in court. But, according to Sheffield County Court, in 15 cases the motorist failed to respond and the company won by default and in two cases motorists paid up before a hearing. So Excel sent just six examples where it won a contested hearing before a judge.

[Moosey]

Quality work!

[peakview]

This covers a few issues

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/action-desk/excel-parking-plan-to-outsource-legal-work-looks-dead-in-water-1-4578457

[Eckolad]

Indeed!

 

I explained how all previous reports up until recently had been using words like fine and how they missed on the facts, how Graham white were not real solicitors etc etc.....

 

I am actually quite chuffed its been taken on board and reported properly

[damageandy]

So Excel sent just six examples where it won a contested hearing before a judge.

 

So they can still win in court then! I cant see how if they judge knows the law they are supposed to be upholding.

[Moosey]

So they can still win in court then! I cant see how if they judge knows the law they are supposed to be upholding.

 

Simply because the Defendant, the person who had the invoice, probably thought they knew what they were doing, represented themselves, trying to quote law and doing so incorrectly, which irritates the hell out of Judges I'm afraid. Get your defence wrong and they will win.

[Penistone999]

fun starts today with us! just received a notice from excel for the broomhill car park for failing to display a valid ticket, for 27mins spent there. has arrived in my name, i for one am in the clear as i can prove i wasnt there and was at work all day. it could have been issued to my wife or father, both of whom drive the car, neither of them know who was driving that day.

the parking charge notice is for an alleged contravention of the terms and conditions of the privately owned car park.

 

they have given me as registered keeper a small slip to return to "help them identify the driver responsible for the charge". obviously i wont be doing so. i have 3 options, one being to confirm i wasnt the driver, one to say it was in the possession of another person, and one to confirm the name of them below! grass!!!

 

if it was the wife, i can put my house on the fact she will have bought a ticket, she always does wherever it is and wouldnt dare not. my father also would have done so, hes very straight up. me, knowing the pcns dont apply, might have been tempted to not pay for a ticket and say sod it, but as it happens i can prove (if it ever went to court!) that i wasnt the driver and we dont legitimately know who the other person was.

 

so, there you go, a first, and will be interesting to see how it pans out, they will definitely see me in court should they decide we are a test case!

 

Do the right thing..............just ignore them.

[ChrisT70]

You wont be a test case.

 

Let us know which *fake solicitor letter* you get.

 

we certainly wont be responding to anything. the pcn is obviously made to look very formal and worrying, has numerous red panels highlighting text, and "charge now payable" warnings. the discounted charge is £60 within 14 days and then £100 plus any costs incurred thro debt recovery and /or court action.

 

you can see why people fall for it , the wife was upset as she knows she would have paid for a ticket if it was her, and hasnt got 60quid to throw away to scammers.