Excel Parking..outside NOW!

[Under Siege]

Wife received a "NOTICE TO OWNER OF INTENT TO ISSUE COURT PROCEEDINGS" from Excel.

She's not the owner as the car is a lease car and she is not the driver (that would be me).

This is the first correspondence that she has received and it states that "YOU HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL" and amount of claim £100.00

 

It also states that "Liability for the pcn charge lies with you the owner/keeper/driver/hirer"

I have read the stickys but am unsure of the best way to approach this.

[pin1onu]

Wife received a "NOTICE TO OWNER OF INTENT TO ISSUE COURT PROCEEDINGS" from Excel.

She's not the owner as the car is a lease car and she is not the driver (that would be me).

This is the first correspondence that she has received and it states that "YOU HAVE LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL" and amount of claim £100.00

 

It also states that "Liability for the pcn charge lies with you the owner/keeper/driver/hirer"

 

I have read the stickys but am unsure of the best way to approach this.

 

Firstly don't panic - this is a notice on an intent to issue court proceedings and not an actual official document.

 

I am going to make an assumption and presume that your wife is either the registered keeper of the vehicle or that the lease company as the registered keeper of vehicle forwarded it on to you or supplied your address.

 

Using the template letters in the stickies, Your wife should write back acknowledging their letter. She should state that she is the lease holder on the vehicle. But as such neither she nor the lease company are responsible for the debt. Include the paragraph from the templates asking them to back this claim with the necessary statute. Ask them to contact the driver on that day.

 

Remember your wife is under no legal obligation to name the driver.

 

One other thing some lease companies will pass on these "fines" with an administration charge. You probably should check that they haven't done this case. Most contracts include provision for tickets with the backing of statute (i.e Penalty Charge Notices, Fixed Penalty Notices) not private tickets. Some companies even pay these "fines" on your behalf. Make sure if there are such terms in your wife's lease that she advises the lease firm that this is a civil notice that you are disputing and they should not pay on your behalf or charge you for it.

[Zamzara]

Remember your wife is under no legal obligation to name the driver.

 

Fixed the typo for you.

[Under Siege]

Sent them the template letter.

Received a response today -

 

"May we point out that the onus is on you as the registered owner of the vehicle to prove that you were not driving the vehicle on the day in question"

"Failure to supply this proof could result in either debt collectors being instructed or legal proceedings being issued in the County Court to recover the monies due"

 

For some reason they keep referring to my wife as the registered owner when infact she is the registered keeper.

[Sidewinder]

Suggest that you write and request for details of the Statute and or Case Law which dictates that the RK is responsible for contractual agreements which may or may not have been entered into by the driver.

[robin9342]

Sent them the template letter.

Received a response today -

 

"May we point out that the onus is on you as the registered owner of the vehicle to prove that you were not driving the vehicle on the day in question"

"Failure to supply this proof could result in either debt collectors being instructed or legal proceedings being issued in the County Court to recover the monies due"

 

For some reason they keep referring to my wife as the registered owner when infact she is the registered keeper.

 

Absolute cr*p!. Its completely the opposite: Excel have to prove who was driving and you have no obligation to tell them. They are well aware of this and are just trying the usual scare tactics.

 

If they don't know who the driver is, they can't even start a court case or instruct a DCA (who have no powers anyway)

[Barnsley Boy]

Excel are a big company - they must have had legal advice at some stage telling them that the Road Traffic Act 1991 does not apply to private companies yet they continue to claim that the "registered owner" [sic] is responsible.

 

Making statements that are known to be untrue for reasons of financial is fraudulant.

 

Pity our Police are so crap!

[Rob S]

Pity our Police are so crap!

 

It's not the police who make decisions over prosecutions it's the CPS.

[Barnsley Boy]

Police filter it before it even gets to CPS - the civilian on the desk will simply say "civil matter". Getting a crime nr is next to impossible, many people on this and other forums have tried.

[pin1onu]

"May we point out that the onus is on you as the registered owner of the vehicle to prove that you were not driving the vehicle on the day in question"

 

As other have said absolute crap. I would use the template letters. Point out there is no such thing as the registered owner only the registered keeper. Also point out the onus of proof is on them as this is a civil case. Ask them to provide statute or case law that proves their claim.

 

"Failure to supply this proof could result in either debt collectors being instructed or legal proceedings being issued in the County Court to recover the monies due"

 

 

This is a demonstrably false statement and is threatening to say the least. IMO it constitutes an offense under Section 40 of Administration of Justice Act. You might want to include a paragraph pointing this out to them and that should they persist with this line that you will consider reporting them to the police, OFT and Trading Standards.

 

As they are now making threats I would issue them with a cease and desist letter.

[Under Siege]

Pin1onu, Thanks for that