Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a contractual relationship between parties - according to the hearing notice.
    • I had forgotten that the fleecers had already played a lot of their cards in the WS they made opposing your set aside application (post 12 for anyone looking in) so that means we can already tighten things up.   Obviously the paragraph numbering will now take one hell of a beating, but that can be sorted out later.   Observations in blue, changes in red.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out.    The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in).   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60?   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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.
    • Can you just remind us what is meant to be happening tomorrow
    • Thanks for your reply, we returned home to find the lock tampered with and it had been broken into. Our alarm system had gone off and we have the log of which systems within the house had been triggered showing they had been in the house. There was a letter left from a supposed bailiff addressed to a complete different property. The letter said they had been acting on behalf of SSE energy company. Our home and street are clearly signed, we have no idea how they have managed to mistake our home for the other property! SSE told us not to call the police and they would get back to us within 48 hours, no explanation or apology. We contacted the police anyway and got a crime number. Thanks 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

emtdickson/Bryan Carter/Catalogue


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4344 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Case dismissed.


Alas I can say little more, as a consequence of the settlement reached, other than please change the thread title to 'won'.


EMT was wonderful, and I got there in time. A good day was had by all. Well, nearly all.


Another one up for CAG.


I hate to add this, but it would really help EMT to keep any disparaging remarks off the thread from now on, but I certainly welcome words of congratulations for her. She is a star. EMT kicks ass.

Edited by DonkeyB
  • Haha 3

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009


If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well done!!!! :D

Congratulations to EMT, you must feel like a load has been lifted from your shoulders.

As for you, DonkeyB, I think we should now officially change your name to



Edited by Undercover-Elsa
in deference to above request ;-)



Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:


All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result well done WhitechargerB and EMT,

only wish we could hear more,

oh well it's enough that you WON:D:D:D

Rbs £114 + contractual at 29.84% I won total=£125 no laughing it's a win

Don't moan about it DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've got to go sort dinner out now but I hope you both get back to your respective homes OK. put your feet up and have a nice celebratory glass of wine!


EMT..I've only stumbled across this thread in the later stages, but want to say very well done. It was a courageous thing to do, taking this on.

We're all proud of you!!

Elsa xx



Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:


All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear loviing people

My computer goes down when I am under pressure, and later that night there was a powercut here. I am still very tired, but I have to say that without this site, I would never have managed to keep going, and without whitecharger, whom I had never met or had contact with except on this site, I know I would have broken down. This brave young man came to help at his own expense, taking the day off to do so, and I hope that with this experience he will go on contributing to this site and helping others.

Each night I prayed for help, and whether you believe or not, there is no doubt that my prayers were answered.

This time has been particularly sad for me because in March, in the middle of all this, I had the first anniversary of my late husband's passing. The Judge ordered the hearing date for June, as a 'stay' from February would have taken me to the date of his death last year and I could not have borne that.

The comments you have all made since are like music to me and better than comedians on the box, and you are all the composers of it!

What can I say? Not a lot really at the moment. I will certainly put some more money where my mouth is, and a little bit more than the two and a half percent of 'winnings' which is the modest suggestion because I think this site needs to be kept going, and if my success enables you all to do that, then that is really the success, not just me.


I do not think the details of the settlement need to be included in the publication of events of the last six months to be able to help someone else in need. There are enough words between the lines to do that.


I think that the only way forward to helping people is to educate them into realising that there are those like BC who have no interest in them, just in getting their money. This ruthless company buys up what the believe is a debt - and let's face it, there is not honour amongst debt collectors either - and will stop at nothing - including evidence that the debt does not exist - to get the last penny. What struck me as well was the cowardice they displayed in instructing someone to act on their behalf only the day before, and that young someone lived miles away from Weybridge to boot.They did not even attend themselves,and to my mind that must offend a Judge who gave up the afternoon for us. I hope the internal grapevine will make BC's methods better known.

We have to realise that the small claims courts were set up to help ordinary people.Before,it cost more to sue than the money. Barristers and solicitors had to be hired to even attempt to get money back. What helps the maninthestreet also helps others.Also, if BC is discredited, there are others waiting to take his place.


One important thing to remember is that saving paperwork for more than five years is becoming neccessary. It is not enough just to put things on computers. You have to have evidence. Now you can see that my paperwork saved was more than theirs. Also, people should be aware that they can defend a case, and when they do so it is taken out of the Bulk Claims Court. It may not help if you cannot show that you have paid the debt, but at least it gives you a fighting chance.


A court order gives Bailiffs the right to break into your home and take whatever they need to pay the debt.The things are auctioned off and rarely make enough money,and dealers stand around like vultures getting goods cheap which they then sell off at a profit. There has only been one programme about this - Beat the Bailiff. Before I watched that this year I had no idea how it worked, and the people on that show never realised what would happen.

I thank you all, and whitecharger, from the bottom of my heart.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

A very good result EMT, and Donkey, well, what can we say? Brilliant advertisement for yourself and all at CAG.


I'm not so sure we should be trying to get rid of good ole Bryan just yet though.


He seems to be willing to pay a lot of costs to whoever fights him, so maybe we should just milk this cow a little longer:D


I wonder if him and his employees get their knickers in a twist when this type of thing happens to them. Gotta luv it.


Well Done

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear bazar

Thank you so much for your kind thoughts. In this case, they could not prove that there was a debt, because there was no debt.


I returned a TV to GUS under the Sale of Goods and Services Act because it was faulty, the engineer they sent said it was.


Now retailers do not like this Act if they can. The TV was collected by them. They did not credit me with the money I had paid. I consulted Trading Standards, Which? Legal and CAB. They advised me about the Sale of Goods and Services Act and I sent GUS a copy of the letter dictated to me on the telephone. I gave them a date by which they must repair or replace the item, after which I was entitled to a new TV. They did neither.


I ordered a replacement TV which they sent. I deducted the cost of the returned item. It was made easy for me to do this, because I ordered a replacement TV - a different make from GUS.


After about a year of arguing I sent GUS a final settlement cheque after deducting the cost of the returned item. They accepted it and paid it into their account.


When they made their claim against me I was very upset. I was at a loss as to what to do. I Googled BC and found a whole lot of stuff, and that led to my joining this site. I have received the most supportive advice from it.


The problem is not so much buying things from catalogues, especially if you are disabled. They do not charge for delivery and offer a large choice which would be impossible to source on the High Street before computers.


They also have interest-free payments, and you can return anything you do not like without question. However, they do not like the Act! When you have paid for an item which turns out to be faulty, it is difficult to get refunds. The fact that I ordered another make TV from them (they had come down in price) enabled me to deduct the cost of the returned item. Had they not sent out the replacement, I would have had to take them to court under the SG&S Act, as advised by Tading Standards etc., so it was somewhat easier for me. The problem is that it is easier for some people to buy beyond their means to pay.


I have never been in debt beyond my means to pay, but when something like this happens it can appear to be that way, so now one has to be very careful when making purchases, because if you do not keep the correspondence, you will have to make claims yourself against a retailer who thinks they are beyond the Goods and Services Act.


I think that BC could believe that an LCD TV 32" cost £1999.99 in 2004. Now, of course they are much cheaper. They wanted over £300 for a year's extended guarantee (which I refused to pay and which might have made them cross) in 2004/5. I would not buy any of their extended guarantees, despite the repeated requests, because I once had an extended guarantee on a washer. When it broke down the repair man quoted £200 (about 1990). When he heard it was insured, he said he had to go and check the prices in his van, and when he returned he said it would be £450 and that was more than the insures would pay.Eventually we received £200 from the insurers twards another washer!! We had paid far more than that in premiums.

I have learned that extended guarantees are not worth the paper they are printed on since the Act was passed.


I would never have been able to go out and buy large items I cannot use public transport and have no car, so would have to take a taxi. Now I can buy online. For years, everything we had had to be delivered, including food. My late husband was 19 years older than me, and he had never driven, so to us it was a convenience.


So long as you can make the payments and do not go beyond what you can pay, mail order can be helpful. People tend to think that only those who cannot pay outright use mail order. That is not always the case. It has always been more convenient for disabled people and those without transport to shop this way. Interest free payments are more a bi-product.


Buying online is common nowadays and more acceptable, and so mail order does not have a bad name.


If retailers accepted the Sale of Goods Act, firms like Paypal, for instance, would not need to refund customers buying faulty goods, so that Act was and is, neccessary, which is a shame really because although Trading Standards et al can help, they cannot go to court for you and retailers know this. We are very lucky to have the small claims courts.


I have discovered another thing: I have received catalogues through the post (the one I am thinking of now is clothes) which do not bear the name of Littlewoods, GUS or JD Williams and if you look at the fine print and note the address, are connected to the mail order business run from Manchester. When I saw that, my first thought was that if I did buy something from this, they may actually apply my card and pay off what they decided I owed. If they had done so, would this have been legal?


I don't know why this went on year on year. It would appear that someone who bought the debt assumed that there were a number of items included in the sum, rather than just one. I made no other purchases after settling the account, and could prove this, so that their saying the sum included several items in the years up to 2007 was simply not true.


If you got rid of them,there will be many others to take their place, and I suppose it is better the one you know.


I was 63 when the item was purchased. I am now 69. That is a chunk of my life they played about with. The Judge dismissed the claim AND the counterclaim. He told me that if He dismissed it it STAYED dismissed. That was good enough for me. He said I could keep the cheque I mentioned in May.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...