Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It’s truly inspirational to think their £460,000 “Partygate” performance piece has not yet reached its final form. That will come as early as today, when a number of the officers tasked with not spotting Boris Johnson in a series of piss-up photos get signed off with stress.   Only when they’ve been on the sick for two years, then retired with a full pension but also returned to a high-paying station desk job, will Partygate have attained the British establishment gold standard.   - Marina Hyde
    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  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 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   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 (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  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?   2.6. 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 is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  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.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) 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.   3.1.  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.   3.2.  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.    3.3.  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   4. 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.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated 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.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  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 does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  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.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. 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.    7.1.  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).    7.2.  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” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  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.    7.4.  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.’’   7.5.  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 Hamilton Douglas 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...''    7.6. 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.
    • Hi dx100uk. I didn't know about the above. Do I request a new CCA from Cabot? Are you  also suggesting that I stop payments to Cabot until this is sorted out?  I have since then built up a good credit rating from the reference agencies  and would not like to turn this sour again. It took some time to get straight. Allets.
    • ah! FCA their new name (well 15yrs ago) for the FSA.   interesting they helped here this must mean they have had a series of complaints then.   dx      
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Child support agency help reqd

Guest Partypip

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5655 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

Guest Partypip

Hope someone can help.


The csa have decided that my brother should pay £198 per month to his ex, through them, for child maintenance. This was decided in May. Mum was on benefits then.


my brother explained they have a private agreement and that he pays her £100 per month.


In June Mum got a full time job


CSA have now decided that my brother owes £1600, and have this month deducted £480 from his wages. They say they will do the same again in december and January's wages.


My brother has asked for a breakdown of the debt, and they say they cant give him one


Although they have left him with 60% of his wages, the amount he is left with covers his mortgage and leaves him with £150.00 for the month. This £150 has to cover £60 a week petrol, electric, council tax, gas, water, and food, never mind trying to cover luxury's such as gym membership, telephone, nights out etc.


Ive looked on Citizens advice website, and csa website, but cant find help.


Does anyone know what he can do.


He has been paying, but directly to his ex. £100.00 per month, he paid for his son's holiday in August £400.00, and spent another £200 on clothes


Thanks in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for CSA for 6 months so can tell you how it works but it is not necessarily my view on what is right.


Firstly they can and should give a breakdown of charges if asked so your brother should ask again. Also if your brother can prove he has been paying the £100 per month maintenance since May that should be taken off of the arrears owed.

The fact that he paid for his son's holiday and clothes is not taken into consideration, so its up to him if he pays any 'extras' for his son.

It does not matter if Mum is working or not, the amount your brother has to pay is the same.

If your Brother is genuinely only left with £150 per month after his mortgage is paid he needs to appeal the amount he pays. The letter he got stating how much he has to pay per week should have said how they worked it out. Has he told them about his mortgage. My son was in the same position a few months ago and the CSA had him as living with family, when he appealed and proved he was renting privately the assessment was reduced. Still not right though, they assessed him on what he was earning in the summer (lots of overtime), now winter and on basic pay he earns quite a lot less.

The CSA do not allow for utility bills such as gas, electric, water, phone etc, your brother should have enough left to be able to pay all these. Mum has to pay them as well.


If its any consolation I would say the initial assessment is wrong 80% of the time (unless its changed in the last 2 years)

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...