Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Highview/DCB(L) ANPR PCN - Letter of Claim - Now Claimform - overstay - Riverside Retail Park in Norwich, Norfolk.

Recommended Posts

1 Date of the infringement 08/08/23


2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 17/08/2023

3 Date received Unknown

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Yes

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A

7 Who is the parking company? Highview Parking


8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Riverside Retail Park Norwich

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.




I have received a PCN from Highview Parking who manage Riverside Retail Park in Norwich, Norfolk.

The free period is 2h30m and it is alleged the vehicle was onsite for 2h45m, therefore a claim is being made by Highview for a 15 minute overstay.

Please find attached correspondence received from the various entities involved. I have not appealed nor had any contact with any of the entities involved.

As this has escalated to a Letter of Claim dated 12 February 2024 I would be grateful for any advice given.

I think I've done this right please let me know if any other information is required.


Many Thanks,




Highview Parking PCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Highview ANPR PCN to Letter of Claim - overstay - Riverside Retail Park in Norwich, Norfolk.
  • dx100uk changed the title to Highview/DCB(L) ANPR PCN - Letter of Claim - overstay - Riverside Retail Park in Norwich, Norfolk.



Thanks for the replies, I did initially upload the letters, please let me know if you are unable to see them and I will do it again and yes, it is a letter of claim, the last letter in the pdf.


hi, dx, last 2 pages of pdf, PAPLOC, not sure what that means, I am new and still reading up on stuff :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply, should I send the letter to Highview and a copy to DCBL or to Highview only?

Looking through some threads for an example letter, is there a template?

Will continue researching the forum to see what I can find but thank you everyone for your help so far.


Edit: OK, found a page on ericsbrother letters, thanks dx100uk on another post :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

Thanks very much for the replies and all the help so far.

Been short on time and had internet problems but hoping to get this sorted today.

@lookinforinfo When you said they didn't comply with Section 9(2)(e), they didn't quote the section but did state on the PCN "as we do not know the drivers details or current postal address,  if you were not the driver at the time" etc etc.

Does that not comply with the statement under (e) ?

So, reading through the act:

(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;

As you say, they have specified a "duration of stay" and not a period of parking.

Just working out a letter at the moment.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,


I was thinking of keeping the SL short and simple, something like this:


Dear TV Stars, (and Highview)

In response to your Letter of Claim



How delightful it is to receive examples of your attempts to fleece motorists and patrons of various businesses.

Your persistence truly is commendable, albeit misguided.

Firstly, I must express my sincere gratitude for your contribution to my entertainment fund.

Your pennies have been put to excellent use in providing me with endless chuckles.

However, your belief that you are owed anything beyond that is as laughable as it is absurd.

You quote parts of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 but have you actually read the act in whole?

If you haven't I suggest you do so now as it might save you a few quid in court.

Take a look at your own Code of Practice as well, while you're at it.

In conclusion, allow me to offer my sincerest wishes: may this be the last we hear from each other because at this time of year, the money I spent on the stamp could have been put towards a visit from the Easter Bunny!

With the warmest regards (not really),





  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you FTM Dave,

I have to credit the author of the original letter on this forum that I "borrowed" from and inspired my letter, which was you, lol!

We can split the prize for Letter of The Year! 😁

I can do the letter to Riverside, unfortunately I don't have any proof of purchase to enclose but I was at Riverside the whole time, nothing ventured and all that.

By my calculations I've still got ten days to reply so I will get to the Post Office in a day or two. 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi All,

I was going to post an update after a month had passed since I sent my SN but didn't get around to it,

after about two weeks I received a letter from Highview letting me know the opportunity to appeal had been missed, Shame, lol! ....

On Sat 13th (the 13th! Aaarggghh! 🤣) I received a Claim Form from DCB(L) .... seems they wish to pursue the matter through the courts! :crazy:

These people really are tiresome ....

Details to follow ....

(EDIT: just noticed this is the 13th post as well! .... not that I'm superstitious, lol! 😂)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

I must admit I didn't end up sending a letter to the retail park but that's OK, I'm not bothered about getting it cancelled,

I really don't mind my day in court, I've been busy reading up on various acts and other sources, some fascinating stuff,

I'm not going to mention anything here at the moment in case they have spies but I think they may be doing something that doesn't comply with the relevant laws and/or guidelines at Riverside,

I don't want to give them any ammo or chance to rectify their mistakes.

I must also say that after spending time reading here I have great admiration for all the forum helpers who help everyone with their incredible knowledge on these legal matters.

Thank you to all of you.

I will post up my redacted Claim Form shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Highview/DCB(L) ANPR PCN - Letter of Claim - Now Claimform - overstay - Riverside Retail Park in Norwich, Norfolk.

Ah OK, I will work through it and get it posted up shortly.

I read somewhere else that these PPC's can get things done retrospectively and manage to thwart a defense by doing so, that was all.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read that, that's what prompted me to think of not mentioning it here yet.

This is what I was referring to earlier, seems credible, if anyone was interested: (although I don't want to stray of topic :) )

At the final hearing in 2016 at the Bolton County Court we relied, you might think unwisely, on a defence that the signage was illegal. 

ParkingEye’s Claims Handler, David Greenbank, although not attending the hearing, had submitted a Skeleton Argument containing a claim that they had been granted planning permission for the signs retrospectively.

The judge found in favour of ParkingEye and anyway we had run out of time and he was anxious to move on to the next case (back-to-back parking cases). 

We had evidence to prove our case, but weren’t allowed to present it.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Which Court have you received the claim from ? CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE

Name of the Claimant ?  HIGHVIEW PARKING LIMITED

How many defendant's Joint or Self? SELF

Date of issue –  11 APR 2024


Particulars of Claim

  1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a parking charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxx xxx at Riverside Retail Park A.

  2. The PCN(S) were issued on 08/08/2023

  3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property in Breach Of The Prominently displayed Terms And Conditions.

  4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.


  1. £140 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

  2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgement or sooner payment.

  3. Costs and court fees

What is the total value of the claim?  £231.51

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?  Letter of Claim dated 12 Feb 2024

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  NO



Yes, lookinforinfo,  I picked up on the word "Must" ....

As you say, they have not done what they legally "Must" do :)

I'm going to buy the Dummies Guide to Law and see if DCB(L) will give me a job :)

I'm also looking forward to CPR 27.1(1)(b)   :)

Edited by anotheruser0000
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CPR 31.14 drafted,

a question though, why is there a copyright? symbol next to CPR 31.15?

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

Also, can I add ANPR CCTV cameras to point 2. T&C Planning 2007 or will etc suffice?

I have decided that I'm also going to make a complaint to the Land Owner,

thanks  lookinforinfo for land owner details.



Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks, I won't wait for them.

On a side note, some of the posts on here are a bit frustrating, I read through five pages or so of someone going through the court process rooting for them as I'm reading, then nothing, not heard of again.

Left here wondering what the outcome was, lol!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through.

Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless.

I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I know we are supposed to file the standard defence but I was thinking of adding the following to see if it would deter DCBL from continuing as this point I believe is irrefutable?

7. In any case, the alleged period of overstay falls within the consideration and grace periods outlined in government legislation and the governing body code of practice and therefore cannot be considered to be in breach of any terms and conditions set forth by the claimant.

What do you think?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans.

It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense.

As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn.

Does that stand until it has been reintroduced?

In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods?

Or is that at the discretion of the judge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, I understand that but I thought, given that's a strong point, they might decide to discontinue and it might not go any further.

Not that I'm bothered about going to court, it's just that I don't get anything out of it if I do.

I propose a new rule. If the defendant wins, the claimant should have to award the defendant the sum of costs they were seeking.

Which in my case is £140 thank you very much.

Then it would be worthwhile and they might think twice about pursuing through the courts, lol!    😃

Edited by anotheruser0000
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...