Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  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.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  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   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        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.   4.3 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.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   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, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    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;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  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. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 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.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, 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 recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye 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...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        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.   7.9        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).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  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.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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 @BigMotoringWrld – Skoda Octavia 2021, 56,863 miles, returned by customer for defects – back on sale

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 125 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

May be an image of car


Of course the issues with this car may have been fixed – but if you're thinking of buying a car from Big Motoring World, maybe you should take special care if you are looking at this Skoda – and maybe before you buy anything at all from them you should have a look at the complaints on Facebook and on this forum.

Apparently Trading Standards may be taking an interest in Big Motoring World according to reports on Facebook

this is a big national company with lots of branches. I'm sure there are many satisfied customers all over the country but it seems that when things go wrong, they become very curmudgeonly about respecting your consumer rights.

It's not clear whether this is simply branch related because of poor local management or this is some kind of company policy trickling down from the top.

One would hope that it is simply some local problems.

When you check out Big Motoring World – you should look specifically at reports about the branch from which you are proposing to purchase your vehicle.

If you're thinking about getting a warranty then follow this link to what we have to say about extended warranties. You are effectively being sold duplicate rights. You are already adequately cover under the Consumer Rights Act.

Selling you a warranty is a clever way of making you pay in advance for any repairs that you might need to your vehicle even though those repairs are probably the responsibility of the retailer.

It's a nice little earner!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is the story behind the car – copied from the story about it on Facebook

  • Gear selector fault = engine management light causing the brakes to release at random intervals
  • Rear right brake grinding and scored
  • 1 key not working battery flat
  • 2nd Key battery flat
  • Locking Wheel nut key missing
  • Tyres on rear mismatched tyre tread pattern and 3mm tread causing excessive road noise and loss of traction in icy weather
  • Brake fluid change overdue
  • Paperwork including V5 and other documents lost
On handover a container of fuel was said to have been added yet zero miles on dashboard
I took delivery of the car on the Friday 15th December 2023 I refused the extra 3 year warranty at £1900
I was told both keys worked and a canister of fuel had been put in the car.
On leaving the showroom the car read zero miles of petrol and zero miles of electric, but I did get to the fuel station.
The brakes did sound very bad but I didn't know if this was what a hybrid was supposed to sound like.
I woke next morning and had a look at the brake discs, looking through the wheel spokes , 3 were OK, one was scored and I thought that the noise I could hear was a worn out brake pad grinding on the disk.
It was at that point I found that only one key worked and a fault warning was on the dashboard, a gearbox fault which was intermittent.
I took the car back to the showroom on the Saturday 16th December to be told no-one there could help me , i asked to see a manager and she changed the battery on the key and told me she would book the car in on Monday and provide me with a courtesy car, and she would ring to confirm on Monday 18th December…..She never called.
But the main issue is the Big Assist manager at Leeds who somehow was connected with the disappearance of my paperwork and my spare key , ....Nat Franklin ...
I did manage to get through to aftersales on the 12th attempt , the previous 11 attempts resulted in the phone line disconnecting before being answered, and a call to the only line in service, sales, Georgie, was generally unhelpful and also would not transfer my call. On the 12th attempt to get in touch with after sales the phone did connect, and the person I spoke with was quite frankly rude and unhelpful.
She told me to drive the car to Kwik Fit for a free brake check, but would not authorize repairs if they were needed.
So I travelled to the BIG Leeds showroom after work and there I encountered no help either.
They refused to accept my car , refused to accept my keys and would not inspect the car. And, if I left the car on site , they wouldnt be liable for its safe keeping , and no , they had no idea which manager I had spoken to on Saturday that had promised to get this mess sorted out.
As the car not only had brake issue and also a gearbox issue , I considered the car undriveable, and had the vehicle recovered under the warranty in the interests of safety to my home address as the site could not guarantee the safety of my car to be roadworthy ,and not guarantee the safety of the car if left on site.
I phoned after sales again and asked them to book the car on under warranty for the repairs, yes of course, they could get it in on the 2nd January.(14 days away) WHAT ?
what was I supposed to do over Christmas with no car , I'm terribly sorry sir there's nothing we can do.
I rejected the car under the consumer rights act 2015
Several times they demanded that I drive the car to their showroom despite being aware that I considered the car to be in a dangerous condition, I refused.
They eventually trailered the car away,.
On 29th December they contacted me and told me that they had turned the engine management light off claiming it was a historic fault, which it cannot be, and also said the brakes were 100 % despite a grinding noise and scored brake discs.
They said that they would have an independent inspection, and that was carried out on the 29th December however as they had cleared the management light from the cars memory, the car showed no fault. And my rejection was rejected.
I was then contacted and told that the car was fault free and must be collected or storage fees would be added at £42 per day.
I reluctantly collected the car on the 13th January 2024
Immediately I noticed that all of the paperwork that I had left with the car was missing, V5, handover sheet, receipt, service history,Green Slip.
These are now deemed lost, however the after sales department deny ever seeing them, basically calling me a liar.
I drove the car home but approaching a t junction the cars brakes suddenly released and the car jumped out of the junction narrowly missing a passing car.
The next morning the 2nd key failed and the engine management light came on with the gearbox fault.
I booked the car into the main dealer for a health inspection who told me that the gear fault was causing the car to not know what gear it was in and releasing the brakes at inappropriate times thinking it needed to set off.
They said the car was dangerous to drive and should not be driven off their site.
They also highlighted other faults that I had not noticed, locking wheel nut key missing, mismatched tyres and 3mm tread on one tyre, advising this should be changed, and that the brake fluid change was overdue.
I have once again had the car recovered to their site, and, for the 2nd time I have rejected the car.
Due to their negligence and unprofessional behavior they put me in danger and almost caused a collision with another car. I consider this company to be negligent, dishonest, untrustworthy and try everything possible to avoid having to fix a car , even when its under warranty.
I have finally been paid out despite them losing the v5 and the spare key , which miraculously turned up after I made a bit of a fuss
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...