stckit Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 EXCEL PARKING (AKA VCS) ARE THREATENING COURT ACTION OVER AN UNPAID 'SO CALLED' PARKING 'PENALTY' AND HAVE SENT A PRE ESTIMATE OF COSTS .... WHAT A JOKE !!! ..... IT JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW AMATEUR THEY ARE :-) No wonder they only took 42 cases to court last year out of 1,800.000 tickets issued ..... They are scaring people into paying up by threatening court action (which, incidentally is done through Money Claim Online, which you or I can easily do online for a cost of approx £70) They are making a luxurious living out of scare tactics .... Anyone having trouble from them should copy this as their defence if online court (MCOL) action is taken or threatened ... until then throw away any so called parking fines they are not worth the paper they are printed on. The grounds upon which I dispute liability for any sum are as follows: 1. The charge is not an appropriate amount. It is settled law that the imposition of charges for parking or trespassing on another person’s property MUST reflect the actual loss incurred by that action. Since this is a free car park there is no loss to the landowner so any charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court (1) to be unenforceable. 2. I am not liable for the parking charge. Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land and thus unable to offer me a contract to park on the land. Simply put, Parking Eye have no locus standi or legal capacity to contract with me. The enforcement of any parking charge is exclusive to the landowner. (2) (3) Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the actual landowner to demonstrate that he has suffered actual financial loss as a result of me exceeding any contractual terms, if any, in what is a free car park. Furthermore, a punitive demand in what is a free car park, it is contended, would be judged by a court to be unreasonable and therefore, would be amongst other things an unfair contract penalty in breach of the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which would not be legally enforceable. In any event, it is submitted that exceeding the time limit by 13 minutes should be regarded as de minimus. 3. Inadequacy of signage. (4) The sign in the XXXXXXXX car park fails to state that the cameras are used to obtain evidence which may be used to issue enforcement notices. There is only a small image of a camera and the text 'car park monitored by ANPR systems'; fails to mention what the data will be used for. This is a clear and unambiguous breach of The BPA code which states: B6.1 (2011 Code of Practice) & 21.1 (2012 code of Practice) "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." it is contended that operating in breach of one’s own industrial code of practice in my respectful opinion represents an unfair commercial practice under the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Trading) Regs 2009. 1. Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 2. VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. 3. Parking Eye v. Somerfield [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. 4. Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 If that is some sort of joke I would say it is in poor taste. We are talking court order and CCJ here. I have taken the time to post on here on a number of occasions since the change in the law in 2012 not to ignore and also to post advice on what to do should you receive a parking notice from a private parking company. Any suggestions on what else I can do? Why not join in the campaign against private parking companies? Or are you one of them? I have had these cowboys harassing me for a few years , and ,yes i still ignore everything they send me as i have never once received official court papers from any of these clowns. Now ,your advice is good advice , but its each to their own . Now should i ever receive court papers then i will deal with that , but until that may or may not happen i will continue to ignore the scammers( including parking eye who have sent me yet /another invoice which dropped on my doormat this morning for committing the crime of overstaying in the Bradfield Rd car park) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 My wife has received a couple of tickets from Meadowhall. It appeared that her Blue badge had expired during the week while we were there but was renewed a couple of days later. I was driving and following advice on this site we ignored the tickets. We have received several letters and letters from debt collection agency who have now referred the debt back to the issuers. Any idea what happens next? No offence Penistone, but I don't need your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted December 4, 2013 Share Posted December 4, 2013 You could just park where you are supposed to park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mumkin Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 You could just park where you are supposed to park. Absolutely, however, you should just pay what you are legally required to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stckit Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) My wife has received a couple of tickets from Meadowhall. It appeared that her Blue badge had expired during the week while we were there but was renewed a couple of days later. I was driving and following advice on this site we ignored the tickets. We have received several letters and letters from debt collection agency who have now referred the debt back to the issuers. Any idea what happens next? No offence Penistone, but I don't need your advice. My advice is to ignore all correspondence from Excel/VCS unless they apply for a money claim online (MCOL) You CANNOT ignore genuine court papers - but still don't worry, just use the defence as I posted above when you reply. In 2011 Out of 1.8 million tickets issued only 845 refused to pay, out of these 845 only 45 were taken to court ... hmmm tells you something doesn't it ? 'profiteering from scaremongering' you may like to check out 'parkingcowboys.co.uk' Edited December 5, 2013 by stckit addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkbylad Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) My advice is to ignore all correspondence from Excel/VCS unless they apply for a money claim online (MCOL) You CANNOT ignore genuine court papers - but still don't worry, just use the defence as I posted above when you reply. In 2011 Out of 1.8 million tickets issued only 845 refused to pay, out of these 845 only 45 were taken to court ... hmmm tells you something doesn't it ? 'profiteering from scaremongering' you may like to check out 'parkingcowboys.co.uk' Please dont follow this advice It is now old advice and you should be using Popla to win ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 10:08 ---------- EXCEL PARKING (AKA VCS) ARE THREATENING COURT ACTION OVER AN UNPAID 'SO CALLED' PARKING 'PENALTY' AND HAVE SENT A PRE ESTIMATE OF COSTS .... WHAT A JOKE !!! ..... IT JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW AMATEUR THEY ARE :-) No wonder they only took 42 cases to court last year out of 1,800.000 tickets issued ..... They are scaring people into paying up by threatening court action (which, incidentally is done through Money Claim Online, which you or I can easily do online for a cost of approx £70) They are making a luxurious living out of scare tactics .... Anyone having trouble from them should copy this as their defence if online court (MCOL) action is taken or threatened ... until then throw away any so called parking fines they are not worth the paper they are printed on. The grounds upon which I dispute liability for any sum are as follows: 1. The charge is not an appropriate amount. It is settled law that the imposition of charges for parking or trespassing on another person’s property MUST reflect the actual loss incurred by that action. Since this is a free car park there is no loss to the landowner so any charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court (1) to be unenforceable. 2. I am not liable for the parking charge. Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land and thus unable to offer me a contract to park on the land. Simply put, Parking Eye have no locus standi or legal capacity to contract with me. The enforcement of any parking charge is exclusive to the landowner. (2) (3) Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the actual landowner to demonstrate that he has suffered actual financial loss as a result of me exceeding any contractual terms, if any, in what is a free car park. Furthermore, a punitive demand in what is a free car park, it is contended, would be judged by a court to be unreasonable and therefore, would be amongst other things an unfair contract penalty in breach of the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which would not be legally enforceable. In any event, it is submitted that exceeding the time limit by 13 minutes should be regarded as de minimus. 3. Inadequacy of signage. (4) The sign in the XXXXXXXX car park fails to state that the cameras are used to obtain evidence which may be used to issue enforcement notices. There is only a small image of a camera and the text 'car park monitored by ANPR systems'; fails to mention what the data will be used for. This is a clear and unambiguous breach of The BPA code which states: B6.1 (2011 Code of Practice) & 21.1 (2012 code of Practice) "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." it is contended that operating in breach of one’s own industrial code of practice in my respectful opinion represents an unfair commercial practice under the Consumer (Protection from Unfair Trading) Regs 2009. 1. Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 2. VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs (Appeal), Upper Tax Tribunal, 2012. 3. Parking Eye v. Somerfield [2012] EWCA Civ 1338. 4. Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2] And was this for a case @ Popla? if so you need to challange the pre estimate, this was done successfully last week. Template defences are not recommended and this one is far to basic so please dont follow it people Edited December 5, 2013 by kirkbylad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stckit Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Please dont follow this advice It is now old advice and you should be using Popla to win ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 10:08 ---------- And was this for a case @ Popla? if so you need to challange the pre estimate, this was done successfully last week. Template defences are not recommended and this one is far to basic so please dont follow it people Excel abides by the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. A code which was in part decided by Simon Renshaw Smith, the Managing Director of Excel, because he sits on the Approved Operators board of the BPA. The POPLA appeals service was introduced in October 2012. The Government requested its creation as a dependency for the Protection of Freedoms Act. POPLA (or Parking on Private Land Appeals) was set up by the British Parking Association (BPA) Ltd as the Independent Appeals Service for members of its Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). POPLA is independent in the sense that it is operated by a different party, but it is paid for by members of the BPA AOS, and the operation is subcontracted to a BPA Ltd member, London Councils. As a result, rightly or wrongly, there is a lingering perception by some that it is not fully independent. ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 10:51 ---------- Please dont follow this advice It is now old advice and you should be using Popla to win ---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 10:08 ---------- And was this for a case @ Popla? if so you need to challange the pre estimate, this was done successfully last week. Template defences are not recommended and this one is far to basic so please dont follow it people Do you have any suggested defence options other than Popla? Excel abides by the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. A code which was in part decided by Simon Renshaw Smith, the Managing Director of Excel, because he sits on the Approved Operators board of the BPA. The POPLA appeals service was introduced in October 2012. The Government requested its creation as a dependency for the Protection of Freedoms Act. POPLA (or Parking on Private Land Appeals) was set up by the British Parking Association (BPA) Ltd as the Independent Appeals Service for members of its Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). POPLA is independent in the sense that it is operated by a different party, but it is paid for by members of the BPA AOS, and the operation is subcontracted to a BPA Ltd member, London Councils. As a result, rightly or wrongly, there is a lingering perception by some that it is not fully independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkbylad Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Popla is the best option as it costs the ppc and bpa money and removes the lottery of a county court hearing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stckit Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Popla is the best option as it costs the ppc and bpa money and removes the lottery of a county court hearing Thanks kirkbylad but I will rely on my acquired knowledge following extensive research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts