Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok guys here is the draft of WS please guide me if needs any changes. Thanks     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.   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.   3.1. The photographs of the  NTK letter shows that the car entering the car park at 00.02.00 midnight but the fact is that the car entered before midnight and it took time for the driver to find the suitable parking bay so it allows driver to park the car there for five hours.   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.     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.    5.1. Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes Any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control” 11. The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, It is also subject to the Liverpool Airport Byelaws 2019, Schedule 4 of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.   5.2. As part of the KADOE contract, it states under paragraph B2.1(a) seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date).    5.3. the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can’t apply on airport land where byelaws apply – plus POFA is only relevant for parking. PROHIBITION 6. It is also my position that the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. I base this on the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6 (page 79, Exhibit 10), where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.    6.1. I question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists    6.2. In case Ransomes vs Anderson, Claim No. 3YS16797, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgment the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with: “Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the landowner listed below”. District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim   The Service Agreement between Vehicle Control Services (hereby known as VCS) and Liverpool Airport dated 08/07/2013 clearly states “for a fixed period of 24 months” (Exibit C), therefore this contract expired in July 2015.   It is contended that no legal contract existed between VCS and Liverpool Airport, at the time of the alleged breach of contract.    7.1. Definition of “Relevant contract” from PoFA 2 [1] means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is— (a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b) authorized, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. 7.2. According to Companies Act 2006, Section 44, a contract to be valid requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between VCS and the motorist. And even if “no stopping” could form a contract [which it cannot], it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.   7.3. According to information on John Lennon Liverpool Airport website (https://www.liverpoolairport.com/ ). Peel Group/Ancala are the land owners NOT Liverpool Airport. More recently, Ancala Partners LLP, the independent infrastructure Investment Manager completed the acquisition of a 45% interest in the Airport in September 2019, with Peel and Liverpool City Council retaining 45% and 10% interests respectively.  7.4. Surely VCS a company that signs innumerable contracts must be aware that no contract exists at the Liverpool Airport. Two points arise from that.    7.4.1. 7.4.2. The first is that by issuing many PCNs at Liverpool Airport with knowingly not having a valid contract is bordering on fraudulent. Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legal necessities, which appears patently untrue.   7.5. Claimant contract contains logo of BPA (British Parking Association) which implies that VCS operates under BPA code of practice which is false. According to information on BPA website (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-approved-operators ) VCS is not a member of BPA. (Exhibit C) ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D), in which I requested copies of the claimant’s planning permission for the signage at the site in question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself, I 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.   8.1. Planning application for the relevant signage (ref: 15A/0657) was made on 11/03/2015 which expired on 24/08/2015, however without permission being granted this application was later withdrawn by the applicant on 16/06/2021. ABUSE OF PROCESS   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).    9.1.1. 9.1.2. 9.1.3. Section 5.3 of the new Code of Practice states the following: “The provisions of Schedule of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g. within airports. Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.” Section 7.2 of the new CoP, defines explicitly, when photographic evidence should be used to serve notice: “Care must be taken to ensure that photographic evidence from camera vehicles is only used to serve a notice of parking charge in respect of parked vehicles, not vehicles whose drivers have momentarily stopped e.g. to check directions or an address within a business park.” The Minister Neil O’Brien, who’s foreword I have attached (Exhibits E) also goes on to state “And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely”   9.1.4. The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. This indicates that the new CoP should be adhered to now, where possible, but clearly VCS are choosing to ignore these new rules, and continuing to go about their business as normal, regardless of the law.   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.    9.3. 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.”   9.4. 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 14They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. 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.”     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.
    • That's not correct.    If a private car park operator includes in their contract conditions that only certain users can use designated bays that's enforceable under the contract the same as any other condition in their contract.   Of course, as we know, the car park operators frequently fail to notify the parking contract conditions correctly or fail to use proper procedures to issue PCNs, but if they do get it correct Parking + Child bays, Blue Badge bays, etc, in private car parks are enforceable as a breach of contract (not as a criminal or civil offence obviously).
    • I wouldn't contact Tesco because what would be your grounds for asking them get the PCN withdrawn?   Surely Tesco will ask you to confirm whether you did in fact have a child with you when parked in the Parent and Child bay? And the only honest answer you could give to that would be 'No'. At which point Tesco are unlikely to use their discretion to get the ticket withdrawn just because of procedural faults in how the PPC dealt with it.  I'm guessing here, but aren't Tesco going to take the view that you have admittd to being guilty of parking where you shouldn't and wash their hands of it?
    • Yep Statute barred: I have credit reports from Oct 2012 that the debt was originally ShopDirect this report had missed payment markers Mar 2012 to Oct 2012 as I was disputing charges. Then on a credit report from March 2013 it shows: Account Name: CapQuest (Formerly FTC) Type: Mail Order Account started 22/03/2010 Default Date: 04/12/2012 Current Balance: £884 and Default Balance: £393 With two months Default markers  Credit report Apr 2015 shows that the Balance was £884, but then in May 2015 balance was amended to £524 This was a the result of complaint with directly with the original lender Shop Direct and not Capquest. The refund was never given to myself by Shop Direct but passed straight to CapQuest which I disputed as the complaint was between myself and Shop Direct. I never got an reply relating to that. I have not had any contact with CapQuest probably since 2015 to tell them that the account should be closed due to the complaint and that is should be passed to the original lender. I have never agreed / acknowledged the actual debt with CapQuest or any such contract with CapQuest - it has always been disputed with the original lender.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Complaint about My Tuxedo


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2704 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

Hi MB,


If you would be able to provide me with a customer number, or order number so that MyTuxedo can look into your concerns that would be much appreciated. If you don't feel comfortable posting them on this forum please feel free to email me at mytuxedo[at]bottlepr.co.uk.


Many thanks,


BOTTLE PR, on behalf of mytuxedo


I placed my order with your company which is now called Dobell.com and my order #90006547 was placed november 28 2014 and is now December 23 2014 and have yet to receive my order. I emailed and called the company various times and to no avail my situation has yet to be resolved and i just contacted the CEO of the company regarding this matter. I am in need of my package before new years eve and this is poor customer service and i am willing to take legal action to this matter. Please avoid this by simply resolving this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that Dobell.com are a US company. You aren't based in the US are you as this is a UK site.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...