Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

PCN Croydon - mistaken identity?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4716 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

Hello there, I'm new to the forum here, but it seems like the place to possibly get some advice on a rather strange matter. I cam home yesterday from work to find a PCN on my door-step claiming my vehicle was illegally parked on a red route in Croydon (Semley Road) in May.


What's bizarre is that my wife and I were in New York City on the date in question, in possession of the only keys for the vehicle which was parked in the secure car park at Glasgow Airport.


Now, I'm sure there are horror stories of cars being stolen or used by valet car park attendants illegally, but this seems wildly far-fetched to me since there were no keys left with anyone for the vehicle.


We've NEVER even been to Croydon in our lives, being from Glasgow so I am 100% certain this is a misidentification of my vehicle. They've not provided any images or details of the vehicle beyond the registration number. My question is, how likely is it for these organisations to make glaringly obvious mistakes in identifying cars in these cases?


I've immediately sent them an email challenging the PCN as they suggest on the letter and explained where we were, however, the best 'evidence' I could provide to back it up were my flight confirmations for NYC and the car park booking confirmation from NCP. I'm a little bemused as to why the onus is on myself to prove my innocence in this case as I would have thought it was first up to them to provide proof of my guilt.


Any thoughts or suggestions about this scenario? A little concerned, despite being sure the car wasn't there for some reason.


Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect that the flight details and copy of the parking confirmation would be sufficient grounds to appeal. I would put the appeal in writing though, emails have a tendency to go ignored. If necessary, I'm sure you could get the airport parking company to write a statement on their company letterheaded paper to confirm that the car was in their posession in a secure car park for the duration of your trip.


It's probable that they have simply mixed up the registration number somehow, or it may be the case that your plates have been cloned at some stage.


You will need to wait and see what they come back with. Keep us posted.



Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible that they have made an error and is certainly not unknown, particularly Croydon. But as you can show that your car was in Glasgow airport at the time, you will win the appeal. I would want to estblish if they did indeed have the correct registration number, in which case there is a cloned car out there and I would be checking in case mine was the clone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick replies guys. In my email I did make it clear that I was keen to see physical/photographic evidence of my car being where they believe it to have been and outlined my concerns that some illegal activity would have to be taking place for it to be possible.


As per CD's advice, I think I'll write to them in addition to the email just to reinforce my concerns.


Once again, thanks for your help and I'll update as soon as I hear anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi guys


Thought I'd provide an update on this situation (sorry if it's a bit of a long ramble).


After following up my initial email with a written representation, in which I reiterated my suggestion that Transport for London had made an error in misidentifying my vehicle, requested physical evidence of my car being in the area of Croydon and that in order for their allegation to be accurate, my vehicle would have to have been stolen and returned, refuelled and undamaged to exactly where we left it in the secure car park, I received a rather irritating and ignorant reply letter.


They said in a very brief note that I had 'stated that I believe my vehicle may have been taken without my consent' and requested documentary evidence of this, including front, side and rear photos of the vehicle and a crime reference number, while suggesting I report the matter to the police immediately. They also stated that without that documentation, the PCN would stand and failed to either acknowledge or fulfil my request for evidence of the contravention.


Absolutely furious with this and feeling that they were effectively asking me to waste police time by reporting a crime there was absolutely no evidence had ever taken place, I approached my local constabulary for advice. The helpful female officer reviewed the correspondence and agreed with me that there were no grounds to suggest the car ever moved from the car park and that a crime reference number couldn't be issued. She said the likelihood was that my plates had been cloned and suggested phoning TfL rather than pursue their required route of writing.


I did so and the operator on the phone, who was initially quite adamant that my car must've been stolen as they had evidence of it being in Croydon, reiterated that I needed to report it to the police or there was nothing they could do. I re-stated that there was no evidence as far as I was concerned because they hadn't provided me with it. She then informed me that the photos can be viewed online. Note this is not mentioned anywhere on any of the documentation received from Transport for London, not the PCN and not in the reply to my representation. Unable to access a computer at that time, I asked her to view the pictures and describe the vehicle in them.


To my 'surprise' she described a vehicle that was not the same make, model or colour as mine. When I pointed this out, she stated that my plates must've been cloned and I would need to go to the police anyway. She then read the number plate in the photos - it did not match my number plate or the one on the PCN. That's right - the number plate they put on the PCN was mine, but the one they photographed in Croydon was not.


The PCN has obviously now been cancelled, but I think it's worth highlighting publicly the staggering level of incompetance required for this error to occur. They managed to get my personal details (presumably from the DVLA) by using the number plate they mistyped, but never thought to cross reference the vehicle's make, model or colour. They also never provided any images or even a basic description of the vehicle they photographed at any stage, despite an explicit request from me for this evidence. Not only that, but they have not even managed to spot this glaring error upon receipt of my representation suggesting they had made a mistake, or through their subsequent 'investigation' into it.


I am preparing a thorough (and long) complaint letter to send to them pointing out my concerns over the failings of their basic systems, procedures, public relations and communications strategies. I am also highlighting their apparent 'guilty until proven innocent' system and refusal to provide evidence upon request, while demanding that I spend my time and resources gathering evidence to prove my innocence. I have in addition raised the issue of them suggesting that police forces waste their time investigating frivolous and unsubstantiated car thefts based on their say-so along with an extensive list of basic and common sense procedures they should have implemented which would avoid this kind of mistake happening. It is breath-taking that an organisation like this can send out demands for money (accompanied with threats of county court orders and bailiffs for failure to pay) on a fraudulent basis due to sheer incompetence on their part.


I will be writing to my local MP and am considering approaching the media to make public the way in which they operate. I hope anyone who reads this is aware that if you are in any doubt as to the legitimacy of a PCN against your vehicle that you MUST challenge it and demand photographic evidence. Do not submit to their scaremongering.


I am hugely concerned that there simply must be many, many instances of this kind of thing and that they will be receiving money from innocent people who are either frightened to challenge them or unable to prove their innocence (something that you shouldn't have to do in this day and age).


Once again, I hope my plight raises awareness amongst people and helps reduce the chances of others suffering the sleepless nights that I have over their handling of this matter.

Edited by dspstv1979
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my advice, don't waste your time kicking up against the council. It's like swimming through custard and you won't achieve anything in the end - you'll get a polite letter acknowledging your grievance and apologising for the inconvenience.


Here's what to do: Try and get a photo of the dodgy vehicle from the council, but even if you can't, report the cloned plates to the police.


Send the council a crime ref number (if they give you one) and a scan or photocopy of the registration document showing the correct make and model.


That should be the last of this one, but the dodgy vehicle may well do other things which come to you. You'll have to just keep doing the same until it's either apprehended or disappears again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my advice, don't waste your time kicking up against the council. It's like swimming through custard and you won't achieve anything in the end - you'll get a polite letter acknowledging your grievance and apologising for the inconvenience.


Here's what to do: Try and get a photo of the dodgy vehicle from the council, but even if you can't, report the cloned plates to the police.


Send the council a crime ref number (if they give you one) and a scan or photocopy of the registration document showing the correct make and model.


That should be the last of this one, but the dodgy vehicle may well do other things which come to you. You'll have to just keep doing the same until it's either apprehended or disappears again.


Jamber, the plates were not cloned.


It was a completely different car and Reg :lol:



Link to post
Share on other sites

Deja Vu ..... By about 20 years.


My mother received a PCN from Croydon, based on tracing her car through DVLA, some 20+ years ago. Since my Mum lent her car to both my sister and I ; Mum asked us who had got a ticket in Croydon, and who had neither paid it nor told her about it.

We both denied it, and on checking with the council : they quoted her car's Reg. Mark, but a different make and model. When she pointed out the make and model were wrong, she was told "well, the details on the ticket aren't very clear, maybe its a different Reg."!


Nice to know that some things haven't changed, even with all the new technology.



Link to post
Share on other sites


we have received a press contact about your story. The media would be very interested if you contacted them with a view running the story immediately.

You are being sent a private message about this.


Can I say that it would be very useful for others but also for your own story if you contacted the reporter immediately so that the story was aired while it is still a hot story

The media tends to lose interest with old stories.

I'm sure that there will be benefit to you if this story is published.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...