Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my witness statement below.  Please let me know what modifications I need to apply.  I haven't included anything related to "administrative charge while paying by credit or debit card" as I wasn't sure if I should include since sign says "it may apply"   Background  1.1 Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of November 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.    Contract  2.1 No Locus Standi, I do not believe a contract exists with the landowner that gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” From PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act) 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) Authorised, 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. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44  For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.    Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed  3.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.  3.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.  3.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.  3.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.    Unfair PCN  4.1         As stipulated in Exhibit 1 (Pages 7-13) sent by DCB Legal following the defendant’s CPR request the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows £60.00 parking charge notice and will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue. The defendant puts it to the claimant a request for strict proof when the signage changed to show £100.00 parking charge as the evidence provided by DCB Legal stipulated £60.00 parking charge was indeed the parking charge at the time defendant parked and included in Exhibit 1   4.3        The Claimant did not respect PAPLOC   4.4        It is also unfair to delay litigation for so long and claim nearly four years' interest.    No Keeper Liability  5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.  5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.    5.3        The claimant did not mention parking period instead only mentioned time 20:25 which is not sufficient to qualify as a parking period.   Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  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;      No Breach of Contract  6.1      No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY.  6.2        The wording “Electric Bay Abuse” is not listed on their signs nor there is any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them.    Double Recovery  7.1        As well as the original £100 parking charge and £50 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  7.2        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.  7.3        The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is also quite clear that the maximum amount recoverable is £100.  Government ministers and government web pages explaining the Act refer to extra charges as "a rip off".  7.4        Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.  7.5        Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since the 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 all 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 practise 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.”  7.6        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 Judgement 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 judgement in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for a addi8onal 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.  7.7        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.  7.8        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  7.9        The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA AND THE CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.    In Conclusion  8.1        I believe the Claimant has got use to intimidation tactics and has got greedy. I believe the truth of the manor is the Claimant has used bullying tactics successfully for too long and is therefore assured that innocent drivers will fall into the trap of paying rather than going through the hours it takes to defend themselves. In the process, wasting the time of the Court, the time of the Defendant and everyone else who has advised the Defendant, out of sheer decency to help have a fair hearing and see justice delivered.  8.2        I am still in disbelief that I am being heard in this court, defending myself nearly 4 years after receiving a charge through my door. I have had to spend weeks’ worth of my life studying the letter of the law in order to defend myself from this ridiculous attempt at a swindle.  8.3        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. 
    • 'I thought why don’t we give it a try?' said student Swapnil Shrivastav, after inspiration struck during water rations.View the full article
    • honestly he/she just makes these ppc look so stupid everytime   fairplay lfi
    • Women share their stories of how they feel renting has held them back in life.View the full article
    • First, the Entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract. so it only  is an offer to treat.  Second, the sign does say % hours free without mentioning that it is also the maximum time one can stay. it would be logical to presume that there would be a fee for staying longer-but not £100. Looking at the PCN-as usual it does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First it does not specify the parking period since their figure includes driving from the entrance to the parking space, then later driving from the driving space to the exit. Second it does not inform the keeper that the driver is expected to pay the charge Section 9 [2]] (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; What that means is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge-only the driver is. As anyone with a valid insurance can drive your car they will have difficulty proving who was driving especially as you haven't appealed. In addition the Courts should your case get that far, do not accept that the driver and the keeper ae the same person. So just relax and ignore all their threats even from their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors.  Just do not ignore a Letter of Claim if you get one of those-come back to us so that you can send a snotty letter.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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 
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Big Motoring World Wimbledon/Blackhorse - june 2023 Ford Kuga failed 12th jan - USELESS WARRANTY- had to pay repairs myself!

Recommended Posts

I purchased my used Ford Kuga 4 June 2023

being a used car I was insistent on having an extended warranty that I was confident in.

The sales person at Big Motoring World Wimbledon sold me the ‘Big motoring world, Big Assist’ warranty which he went on to tell me included

1) 24/7 helpline

2) Roadside assist

3) Hire car

3) work can be carried out at any independent garage that is VAT registered and BM world will pay Labour rates up to £75 p/h (this was a crucial selling point for me!)

4) an App to access all you need


I would NOT have purchased the car if it wasn’t for this warranty (that I now feel i was completely mis-lead into purchasing) 


Friday 12 Jan 2024 when driving home my engine warning light came on and power cut off with a message saying pull over when safe, which I did. 

I ended up walking my children home and my husband got the car home safely. 

The breakdown section of the App was excellent and the person I spoke to was extremely helpful and had a mechanic sent out to me at a time that suited me the next day. He made my entitlements very clear and I was happy that I knew what was going on.

On Saturday morning the roadside mechanic informed me the water pump had failed and the car would need to be taken to a garage.

I tried to call the 24/7 helpline (this is separate to the breakdown section who it transpires are a different organisation) the helpline voicemail advises It is mon-Fri 9-5 and send an email - the web chat also advises to send an email for support.

I sent an email entitled URGENT.

I had no choice but to make a decision on where to have the car towed to myself and asked the mechanic to take back to where he had come from (National Rescue Centre) about a 45min walk from my home.

He informed me that there would be an £80 diagnostic fee which would be waived should the work be carried out there - they could do the work Tuesday 16th Jan. 

Monday morning I rang the helpline and was informed that this was no longer the correct number and they had been advised to pass all Big Motoring world customers back to the after sales team as of 18 Dec 2023 and he gave me the number.

When I eventually spoke to an advisor, I was informed that any work would need to be carried out at a BM World service garage and the earliest appointment was 11 March at Snodlands (nowhere near where I live and the car was at this point not drivable and in a garage in Chessington)

I explained that this was not acceptable as I don’t have any other form of transport, my daughter was having to be kept off nursery that I am still paying for, I have a 10 week old baby who has appointments to attend and I need my car. I informed them that I would need a hire car until my car was fixed, to which I was told I could have one for the day of the appointment only.

I asked for a manager and was informed none were available but they would call me back - which they did not.

That afternoon I called again… no one could tell me what I should have actually of done on Saturday morning to avoid being in a situation where my car is now sat in a garage unable to be driven, 45 mins from my house with an £80 diagnostic fee to be paid and a recovery fee to get it back to my home address that BM world are adamant they will not pay for any of this and they will not pay for the work to be carried out! 

A new date of 5 Feb was offered to me, which again is not a reasonable timeframe when you can’t leave your house and get your children to school etc.

They then said they wanted to send an independent inspector to the garage to check what work needs doing as ‘the garage could be telling me whatever they want’ - this is the garage that the warranty company sent to me!

They said they could also then check the work was covered and then the work would still need to be carried out at their service garage no earlier than 5th Feb! So now the independent garage are expected to store my car (at an additional cost to me) for them to come and inspect it!

No one would allow me to speak to their top manager (George) - I put my complaint to him in writing on Monday evening. Wednesday evening he replied to say ‘sorry to hear this, we will investigate it and be in touch’ 

I have had to pay to get the car repaired myself as I cannot be without a car. 

3 weeks is completely unreasonable when the warranty that was sold to me was made very clear I could use an independent garage for work - I would not have purchased a second hand car of this age if this wasn’t the case.

I feel the car and warranty have been Mis-sold and I was mis-lead into buying both of these. 

I am now £600 out of pocket when I paid £900 for a warranty that should have provided me cover for this! 

I don’t understand how a company can change their ‘guidelines’ so significantly at the drop of a hat to without informing their customers who have purchased the product. I was told this all changed on 18 December and they are in the process of telling customers.  

My main issues are:

1) There is no 24/7 helpline as promised

2) They have changed their ‘guidelines’ (as they call it) on using independent garages. I would NOT have taken this out nor would I have purchased the car if I knew the car had to go back to them for any work!

3) The hire car is completely misleading

I feel the whole warranty was mis-sold to me and I was completely mis-lead by the sales assistant. 

No one has communicated that there have been changes

What they offered me in terms of a date to book my car in to be seen is completely unreasonable and unacceptable

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Big Motoring World Wimbledon - june 2023 Ford Kuga failed 12th jan - USELESS WARRANTY- had to pay repairs myself!

as you've realised 99% of warranties on anything arent ever worth the paper they are printed on.

and you paid £900 for that ......

is this car on finance?


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum. We should be able to help you.

I'm trying to work through your story. There is quite a lot of narrative and so it is difficult to understand completely what has happened.

We are getting lots of complaints about this company. This is not the first time that I have heard that they have suddenly changed the terms of their warranty and of course they should not be allowed to do this in respect of existing warranties. There would only be allowed to do this in respect of warranties after the change.

Please can you stand by for a further response tomorrow. In the meantime, can you post up in PDF format the wording of the originall warranty, The exact date that you purchase the car and the date which to your knowledge they change the terms of the warranty.

Stand by for a further response tomorrow.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is on finance with Black horse.

Unfortunately, I was not given a paper copy of the warranty T&C and having gone through all of my emails, it seems I wasn’t emailed a copy either. 

When I purchased the car, it took over 5 hours (I should have realised at this point it was a bad idea!)

They bombard you with different things to sign, which by this point I was desperate to leave as my 2 year old had missed her dinner.

I got several emails with copies of the signed paperwork but it would appear the warranty t&cs wasn’t one of them.

I purchased the car 2nd June 2023 and collected it 4th June 2023.

I am lead to believe the ‘guidelines’ as they keep referring to them, changed 18 Dec 2023

I have previously made a claim on the warranty back in the summer.

The work was carried out at an independent garage and it was all very smooth, they paid out no bother at all, but i was told as of 18 Dec, independent garages can no longer be used!

Thank you for your time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the present warranty and conditions published on their website?

Have you anything in writing which at least acknowledges that there was a change

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t find any terms and conditions linked to warranties. There’s lots of others but not warranties that I can find. It does however advertise:

‘access to over 1000 approved garages UK wide’ and ‘24/7 helpline’ amongst other things that their extended warranty includes that are untrue.


I will email and ask for a copy of T&C.

I don’t have it in writing regarding the changes, it was all over the phone. In their response to my trust pilot review it just says ‘I understand your disappointment with the current guidelines’ 

I have however had work carried out previously at an independent garage that they paid out for.


Link to post
Share on other sites

This change in the terms and condition of the warranty has been referred to elsewhere either on this Forum Or else on the Facebook group

If you have the time To look for them would be very helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will keep searching. I have also emailed and asked for copies

I would have thought that they had a responsibility to inform customers of any changes, which one of the managers admitted to me in the phone that they have not yet done.

There seems to be quite a few people on the FB group who have faced the same experience with the changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They  don't need to "inform" of any changes, because they cannot change anything.

It's a contract. If they change terms and conditions, they are in breach.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Big Motoring World Wimbledon/Blackhorse - june 2023 Ford Kuga failed 12th jan - USELESS WARRANTY- had to pay repairs myself!

snotty letter to blackhorse on that too IMHO as their finance is PAYING for the warranty so under section 75 they are equally liable.


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, would you post up a picture of your vehicle – maybe from the advertisement but also from now and it would be helpful to have the registration number as well.
Don't worry about posting that kind of detail. It's not unlawful and it will help you and it will help other people and of course it will embarrass Big Motoring World. Oh dear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

what happened?


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...