DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52869--------------------------------------------------
Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay - Feethams
Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: eggybread123
Date: January 10, 2025, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
On the 21st August 2024, upon entering the car park, the driver
found a space, parked up, and explored how to pay. The payment
took 17 minutes to process as the driver had to locate a
machine, take down the code, load the app, find signal of which
the driver couldn't until they went to the leisure centre and
joined the wifi, whilst getting two children ready to go
swimming at the leisure centre. The driver eventually paid for 3
hours parking and left the carpark within 3 hours of arriving
into the car park.
On the 30th August i received the parking notice from Excel
parking (PDF attached)
As the registered keeper I appealed this charge on the
10/09/2024, albeit as I had misunderstood the charge and thought
that the notice was for the driver not paying for parking, of
which I have evidence of payment.
On the 21/09/2024 my appeal was dismissed
HTML https://imgur.com/a/AH4SrIq
HTML https://imgur.com/a/AH4SrIq
On the 23rd October as registered keeper I was sent a letter
from DCBL acting on behalf of Excel Parking
HTML https://imgur.com/a/2Sqholq
HTML https://imgur.com/a/2Sqholq
On the 07 Jan 2025 I was issued a Claim Form for a Civil
National Business Centre claim from Excel Parking. Claiming a
total £259.40 (£174.40 claim + 35.00 claim fee + 50 legal fee)
I have not corresponded with Excel or DCBL since my initial
appeal.
image of signage:
HTML https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipOXXhGI9hFl-m0svDWjiGtQGdOwbY1vPIguOXQl=s2880-w2880-h1514
HTML https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipOXXhGI9hFl-m0svDWjiGtQGdOwbY1vPIguOXQl=s2880-w2880-h1514
google maps street view
:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/nVCbSWVajRDM3suH8
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 52930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: Dave65
Date: January 11, 2025, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This 5 minute to pay is rather ridiculous at times, they have
not lost any money through this.
The claim amount would be challenged in any defence against the
£70 part as many courts in the past have not aloud this.
#Post#: 52931--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: b789
Date: January 11, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Welcome. Please show us the N1SDT Claim Form you received. Only
redact your personal details, the claim number, your VRM and the
MCOL password. Leave everything else showing, especially the
Particulars of Claim (PoC) and all dates, especially the issue
date.
Has Excel issued the claim themselves or have they used a bulk
litigator such as Elms Legal or DCB Legal? You will know this by
the name in the address for correspondence to send to, if it is
not blank.
You have not shown us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
was received or the wording you put in your appeal. It helps us
to advise accordingly if that information is provided.
This scam by Excel Parking is well known. Your photo of the sign
has cropped the terms on the right side which will show the
clause requiring payment within 5 minutes of entering the car
park although they are repeated in minuscule text near the
bottom of the sign. That clause is considered a "penalty
clause", (although interpreted by some judges as simply a clause
that simply "penalises" the driver. Either way it is easily
defended.
Under English law, a penalty clause is one that imposes a
detriment on a party for breaching a contract, where that
detriment is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss or is
disproportionate to any legitimate interest of the other party.
A clause that "penalises the driver if they breach it",
inherently suggests the clause imposes a penalty for
non-compliance. This aligns with the essence of a penalty
clause.
Any assertion that the clause "is not a penalty clause" but
"penalises the driver" conflates the clause's punitive nature
with its enforceability. If the clause's purpose is to penalise
rather than compensate for actual loss, it is, by definition, a
penalty clause.
In light of Cavendish Square v Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis,
the clause should be examined as follows:
[indent]1. Legitimate Interest:
[indent]• Does the 5-minute limit serve a legitimate interest of
the parking operator (e.g., ensuring prompt payment or turnover
of parking spaces)?[/indent]
While there may be some legitimate interest, the clause's effect
of penalising non-compliance, particularly given the practical
impossibility of compliance, suggests it is disproportionate.
2. Proportionality:
[indent]• Is the detriment imposed (e.g., a fine or charge) out
of proportion to the legitimate interest?[/indent]
The time limit starting from the ANPR camera entry, combined
with the impracticality of complying, means that the clause is
unreasonable and therefore, punitive.
3. Practical Feasibility:
[indent]• The clause requires actions (finding a space, reading
terms, setting up payment) that are almost impossible to
complete within 5 minutes. This undermines the fairness of the
clause and its enforceability.[/indent][/indent]
Argument as to why the Clause is a Penalty
[indent]• The strict 5-minute timeframe effectively sets up
drivers to fail, especially considering the logistical realities
of parking and reading extensive contractual terms.
• The operator suffers no tangible loss if the payment is made
later, undermining any argument that the charge represents a
genuine pre-estimate of loss.
• The clause appears to deter breaches rather than protect a
legitimate interest, making it punitive and
unenforceable.[/indent]
How to Challenge the Clause if it goes to court
[indent]• You would highlight the practical impossibility of
complying with the clause, rendering it inherently unfair.
• You would argue that the charge imposed is not a genuine
pre-estimate of loss and is disproportionate to any legitimate
interest.
• You would refer to Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires
terms to be fair and transparent. An unachievable requirement is
neither.[/indent]
So, if the clause penalises the driver for breaching it and
imposes an unachievable requirement, it is inherently a penalty
clause, as its purpose is punitive rather than compensatory or
proportional to any legitimate interest.
#Post#: 53858--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: eggybread123
Date: January 17, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello thank you for your reply.
Here at the answers to your points raised:
Please show us the N1SDT Claim Form you received. -
HTML https://files.catbox.moe/9iwdm2.pdf
HTML https://files.catbox.moe/9iwdm2.pdf
Has Excel issued the claim themselves or have they used a bulk
litigator such as Elms Legal or DCB Legal? DCB Legal Ltd
You have not shown us the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
was received -
HTML https://files.catbox.moe/9tgsim.pdf
HTML https://files.catbox.moe/9tgsim.pdf
Appeal wording: unfortunately I did not keep a record of this as
I thought it was an admin error and that it was a PCN for the
driver not paying, I challenged on this basis saying the driver
did pay and I attached proof of payment. It was only when my
appeal was rejected that I realised it was the longer than 5
minutes aspect not non payment.
#Post#: 53884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: b789
Date: January 17, 2025, 8:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With an issue date of 7th January, you have until 26th January
to submit your Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Follow the
instructions in the linked PDF to submit your AoS:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Having submitted your AoS, you will then have until 4pm on
Monday 10th February to submit your defence.
Let us know when you have submitted your defence and we will
provide a suitable defence.
#Post#: 53891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 18, 2025, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Having submitted your AoS, you will then have until 4pm on
Monday 10th February to submit your defence.
>
> Let us know when you have submitted your defence and we will
provide a suitable defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
did you mean AoS?
#Post#: 53892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: Dave65
Date: January 18, 2025, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Excel have a record of this 5 minutes.
There was a small claims case in Sheffield recently about a NHS
manager who took 24 minutes to complete his payment on the app.
The judge dismissed the case.
"Driver fined £268 after delay with parking app"
Also, in the media and on tv the BPA looks like they are going
to alter the CoP. Lets see what they come up with.
#Post#: 54012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: eggybread123
Date: January 19, 2025, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an issue date of 7th January, you have until 26th January
to submit your Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). Follow the
instructions in the linked PDF to submit your AoS:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
>
> Having submitted your AoS, you will then have until 4pm on
Monday 10th February to submit your defence.
>
> Let us know when you have submitted your defence and we will
provide a suitable defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello, thank you again.
I've now submitted my AOS
#Post#: 54029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: b789
Date: January 19, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the defence and the draft order. You only need to edit
your name, the claim number and sign the defence by typing your
full name for the signature. There is nothing to edit in the
draft order. When done, save them as PDF files and attach them
to an email addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and
CC in yourself. The claim number must appear in the email
subject field and in the body of the email put "Please find
attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Civil
Enforcement ltd. v [your full name] Claim No.: [claim number]".
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No: [Claim Number][/right]
>
> [center]BETWEEN:
>
> Excel Parking Services Ltd

> Claimant
>
> - and -
>
> [Defendant's Full Name]
> 
Defendant
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEFENCE[/center]
>
>
> 1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](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 state with sufficient particularity 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 exactly how the claim for statutory
interest is calculated;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as
the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether
the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and
should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of
action.[/indent]
>
> 4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an
order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to
make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and
understand the case which they face and can then respond
properly to the claim.
>
> 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:
--- End Quote ---
Draft Order for the defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gmpkg6f843yga1sw1iwdo/short-defence-order.docx?rlkey=ppd7dwlale9j25111548n2e1j&st=anelpjne&dl=0
#Post#: 54198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Excel Parking PCN - Took longer than 5 minutes to pay -
Feethams Leise Car Park, Darlington
DIR By: Dave65
Date: January 20, 2025, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This car park in Darlington could be the same one were the local
MP got involved with last year.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page