Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @FTMDavethanks for guiding me step by step. I have captured the photos night time as well if you see they are not visible even in day time how can anyone see in the night
    • just to clarify one matter everyone....   the statement that 'all road markings within any private land/carpark are mere tarmac graffiti is quite correct.   for dedicated use bays - there has to be a clearly visible sign(s) if one parks in those bays, which must be covered by the relevant council planning permission for poles+signs and elsewhere there must be a sign that details their usage conditions/contract.   dx
    • Don't worry, we're getting there bit by bit.   Tomorrow evening I'll try to deal with your questions.   The photos you've taken are superb - they show the signs as tiny and not illuminated.    
    • Good thinking! I only requested the telephone hearing (in the body of the email) and will send the further note tomorrow to cover all bases!
    • @FTMDave i am attaching the photographs of the Alama park please have a look. Checking your previous post where you corrected some line and suggest some but i could not understand. Is it possible if you edit and delete irrelevant lines.    I have edited little bit but not sure what to add and what to look for   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. Where to look on PCN letter?   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). What shall i add here   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? ( I couldn't understand this)   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    Alma Leisure.pdf Alma leisure centre.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Filing a Small Claims against Hermes for lost parcel 10 months later


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 194 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

I'm sorry to tag onto that thread with my own query but I would like to ask about my chances of filing for a small claim 10 months after the parcel worth £500 has been lost by Hermes?


Back then my parcel was uninsured and I was convinced I have no right of claiming back the money but recently I found all these threads on this forum which sparked a bit of hope (in fact I am going through claim on another item which has been lost recently and worth £210 and even though it was insured for a full value, Hermes still is reluctant to send me my money back). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sunflowerrc said:



As you say, you have tagged onto someone else's thread.

Please can you start your own thread and we will help you. Hijacking somebody else's thread simply confuses things and also it is much better in terms of Google rankings for these kinds of problems people have their own threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to use this thread to ask about chances of winning a case where an item has been lost 10 months ago by Hermes. The contents, (bicycle groupset) worth £500, sold through eBay and was never delivered to the intended recipient. Since I have not purchased insurance to cover for a full value, I decided to drop the case by not responding to Hermes when they informed me that they can offer me £20 for lost items plus postage cost. And yes, this amount made it back to my account as far as I can remember.


After reading through a few threads on this page I now know how useless their insurance is. In fact, this week another of my parcels has been lost (£200) but this time it was insured and Customer Services still make it difficult by asking for invoices and proof of purchase "in an acceptable format" because screenshots from eBay page seem not up to their standards.


I have read up on Citizens Advice page that the Small Claims can be made up to 6 years from purchase so in light of this information I feel I still have the right to do make a claim. Although, the question really is how well will it go, considering I dropped (didn't follow up) the case because I thought it was my fault for not insuring high value contents and Hermes issued me the £20 plus postage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens advice are wrong. You can bring a claim for breach of contract six months from the date of the breach. This means that a contract may be enforceable longer than six months after the contract was agreed.

So on the basis of what you tell us, there is no problem about bringing the claim.

Read around the Hermes stories on this sub- forum and you will soon understand the journey. The delay makes absolutely no difference. They all go broadly the same way and you will probably succeed in your claim.

Make sure you have got all your evidence together. The only thing that might get in the way is if you have got rid of documents or certain emails are no longer accessible due to the passage of time.
They will try to put you to proof as to the value of what you have sent – but other than that there shouldn't be a great problem.

Read around and then come back here

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...