Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 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

ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Overstay - Riverside Retail Park, Chelmsford, Victoria Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1AN

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 117 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

Their  PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore PE cannot transfer the alleged debt from the driver to the Keeper. You have done well not to appeal so PE does not know who was driving and as anyone who has an insurance policy is able to drive your car.


I know the poor dears think their PCN is compliant but it is not and one of these days they will find out- but that is for the future.


The reason for the non compliance is that instead of providing the period of parking they provide the arrival and departure of the car. Big difference especially with three children on or two perhaps needing to be strapped in to a baby car seat which also adds to the time being parked therefore less time  being over the 2 hour  waiting time-perhaps even being less than two hours and ten minutes since there is a minimum grace time of ten minutes. 


So if you work out the time to drive from the entrance then find a place to park; then actually park it correctly between the lines and then get yourselves and three children out of car that is the start of the parking period.

Next you all return to the car, load up the boot  with goods lad up the children, return the trolley and then go back to the car and turn on the engine and pull out if all is clear. That is the end of the period of parking. 

The time it takes to move out of the parking space  and reach the exit does take several minutes and will depend on how busy the car park is at the  time.



If you don't live too far from the car park  photographs of the signs, especially the entrance sign , any sign s by the pay machine if there is one and pictures of signs that have different wording on them. Please try and ensure that once the pictures are taken they can be read by geriatrics like me when posted here.


So well done for not appealing so that PE do not know who was driving. That is important since it may have been your spouse, a relative or even one of the older children-even on L plates that could have been driving. That is why we advise not to appeal since one can inadvertently slip up and say that I did something rather than the driver did something-it is an easy mistake to make.








  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Rather than a snotty letter this time perhaps one that gets them thinking whether to drop this.


I had to laugh when I saw how quickly you have pushed this case through to threatening Court action. Could it be that as the Private Parking Code of Practice has been temporarily withdrawn you though you would sneak this one through hoping that Judges and motorists hadn't read it?

Oh dear. A PCN that is non compliant, no Council planning permission and you still don't know who was driving. No wonder you do not want to serve up this junk of a case after the whole of the new Act comes into force.

What? You didn't know some of it has already been in force? That the  BPA Code of Practice has not been complying with the Law?


And who do you choose as your legal aid?  Gladstones? They may not be the worst solicitors in town, but if the worst one does close down Gladstones should be worried. Elms? No sniggering at the back. QDR? Seriously? There is always DCBL if you want to lose a case. Mind you they are all incompetent and perhaps more interested in garnering their own fees rather than trying to win an unwinnable case for you.

The gravy train has come to a halt. If you have any sense, or should I say if you can see beyond your usual greed, this is one you should pass on.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There is a new Act coming in to force which clarifies the current Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

One of the things it does is to confirm that the ANPR camera cannot be the period of parking as once you have entered the car park you have first to tfind a parking place-in your case probably a parent and child place. They may be full and you have to wait for a car to pullou


Then you have to manoeuvre your car into a space perhaps taking a couple of tries to get the car completely between the lines. This is the driver doing all that, not the keeper. Then the children have to be unbuckled and once everyone is unloaded, the car locked and the parking T&Cs read, the parking begins.

On returning to the car, the children  are rebuckled in, the trolley unloaded and returned to its place before moving away from the parking spot. That is the parking period not the rubbish they claim with the ANPR cameras.


Here is the new Act. Some of it should already be included in present cases but are not since it would cramp their style[ ie they would not be able to rip off motorists ] so they don't want to use it. At the moment the Governmant has temporarily withdrawn it because BPA have objected to it [they know the gravy train is coming to and end so they are stalling. Nevertheless  the Law is coming and as it is the will of parliament, Judges are likely to agree with motorists rather than the parking rogues.





Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to ParkingEye ANPR PCN Letter of Claim - Overstay - Riverside retail park, Chelmsford
  • 3 months later...
  • dx100uk changed the title to ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Overstay - Riverside retail park, Chelmsford
  • 1 month later...

On post 32 PE responded to your snotty letter . What they failed to say was that the keeper  could not be held liable for the debt because they had screwed up the PCN. In addition the not specifying the parking period  Schedule 4 S9 [2] [a]

(2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 

they also got it wrong on Schedule 4 S9 [2] [e]  

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Did their PCN ask you the keeper to pay the debt? No they dd not.

Did they ask you to pass the Notice on to the driver? No they did not. So massive fail.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

I found this on the Chelmsford planning portal which was updated  on January 2023. 


Find out details of the Riverside car park, including location, number of spaces and charges.

So is this a different car park from the Riverside Retail park or has PE not applied for planning permission 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...