Great, thanks. I'll sit tight in the meantime then.

I'll have a look through the threads, but there is no such thing as an imaginary contract. You can't contract without your knowledge, it's not possible. By definition a contract requires agreement between the parties. It's going to be pretty black and white, other than technicalities like planning for signs, cameras and poles etc. The court either doesn't believe people when they say they didn't see the signs, or they don't. I can't legally have entered into a contract without my knowledge. It's not possible. That's why parking tickets are so hard to enforce. I could have seen the signs but disagreed with the terms and there would be no contract - I'd be parking there outwith any contract with farmfoods or PE. If I produce witnesses which would be my family to say that none of us saw the signs and therefore I could not possibly have entered a contract, there can be no liability under contract law. Period. Whether there is liability under some other area of the law like delict or trespass is another matter. There's no delict here though because they suffered no loss, and suing for damages under trespass is a complex procedure and they wouldn't be able to recover more than would be a reasonable charge for use of the land which, for a car park that was free to customers, would be negligible. I'm in absolutely no doubt that I'd win if it went to court, but I don't want to be attending court during another covid wave, or the hassle involved in preparing a defence, travelling the 35 miles to court etc. That's why I was keen to know how often they raise proceedings in these cases.

I'm not sure I understand, what law governs the situation then if not contract or delict? Ie what then is the legal position and where do I have it wrong? My empty car park was just an example of how there can be no delictual liability. Contract law seems to be the only potential legal basis of their claim. It was a no charge car park you see, free for customers of farmfoods. I just didn't know that and parked in it because it was adjacent to the leisure centre I was going to and couldn't see an alternative car park. Yes I won't go off on my own with anything. How often do they proceed to court and, if they do, can they obtain CCJ without me being notified? eg through a summary process that doesn't require notification of the defendant?

In reparation in Scotland and England, my understanding is that if you're a private entity you can only have a right of claim again another party in these circumstances under either contract, quasi contract, delict or quasi delict, so you either have to have breached a contract with the party pursuing you or you've done something wrong against them for which you are a) liable to them for damages and b) have cause them to injury, suffering, financial loss etc. contract cases (which this would be) the court has to decide whether there was a contract and, if so, was it breached. In delict, they have to decide, on the balance of probabilities whether the pursuer says happened has happened, they are liable and, if so, whether and how much loss the pursuer has suffered as a result. There's no delict here as the car park was empty and I've not prevented eg customers shopping at farmfoods by blocking an entrance, costing them a day's takings. The only issue is whether I saw and agreed to their terms and conditions when I parked there. Road signs are different, because they are governed by legislation which presume you have or ought to have seen the signs, so it's a different burden of proof compared to contractual issues. So here, the court would have to believe that I read PE's sign (I didn't and there's no evidence saying I did) and accepted their terms. That's my understanding of it, although I'm more familiar with Scots law than English. They are very similar when it comes to contract law though. My main concern is whether the court grants these clowns CCJ in my absence, without notification, as often happens with eg council tax cases. I'm not sure how the court setup operates in England, I know it's different from scotland. Re the car park, I'm 30 miles away, it's an hour away but I'm likely to be in the area again next week so I could get pics then. I think the original PCN was sent to the finance company, if they've sent it to me then I will have binned it as I always do with private parking charges (and before it occurred to me that, this one being in England, I should have held onto it and reconsidered). I think I probably gave away that I was the driver in the appeal message/email I sent them.

Thanks, I live in Scotland and normally ignore these things, but because it occurred in England I thought I'd best deal with it. I stupidly thought they'd see sense when I appealed and explained I hadn't seen the signs and hadn't parked there for Farmfoods. Should have known better. For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] (must be received within 14 days from the Incident) Please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 3/4/22 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 7/4/22 - it was issued to my car finance company who forwarded it to me. [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please do not put JPG Picture files into your post 3 Date received not sure, less than a week after I parked there 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? 2 pictures, one showing the front of my car with timestamp, the other showing the back of my car with timestamp. 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] It was an online appeal via the Psrking Eye website iirc. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Y - they just said the appeal was rejected. 7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Farmfoods, Berwick-upon-tweed For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. POPLA and BSA There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - "notice of debt recovery" from dbcl pdf24_images_merged-1.pdf

Hi Guys, I have a standard parking eye but with particular personal circumstances that might merit just paying the £145, depending on your advice. On 4th April 2022 we went to the new leisure centre in Berwick-upon-tweed. We don't live in the area and it was our first time since the new centre had been built, so we weren't aware of the parking situation. The old car park was gone, so we parked in the car park immediately next to it, just outside Farm foods. We didn't see any signs and the car park was empty aside from one other vehicle. When we came out, ours was the only car in the car park. I then received the parking charge notice from Parking Eye, along with pics of our car and the signage at the entrance to the car park (again, we didn't see it). I appealed and also sent them an email explaining that we didn't see any of their signage and assumed the car park was for both farmfoods and the leisure centre we were attending. I explained that since we did not see the sign we could not have entered into a contract with farmfoods or parking eye and therefore could not be held liable for any breach of their terms and conditions, therefore they have no contractual right of recovery against me. I refused to pay the charge and said they'd just have to take me to court, where I would defend the claim and seek expenses. So contractually, they have no right of claim because there was no contractual agreement, and there's no delictual liability because they've suffered no losses as a result of me parking there. So legally, I'm confident that if it went to court I would easily defeat a claim because they have no evidence that I read their signage and agreed to the terms therein, and no evidence of any losses they've suffered as a result of my actions. That's before considering any technical rules they may have broken in pursuing the charge What I'm wondering is whether it's worth defending in a practical sense, even though the law is on my side, because I've had some significant issues with long covid for the past 13 months plus a recent reinfection that has set me back a bit. Basically I'd rather not have to attend a busy court during what is the start of another wave of covid infections, or have the to and fro hassle of dealing with a court claim for the sake of £145. BUT, I also don't want to give in to these predatory scumbags and do exactly what so many people do and just give in to them for an easy life. For me, it might end up cutting off my nose to spite my face because I could do to be focussing on my health right now and not running on the treadmill of debt collection again. (I was there 4 years ago and you guys were incredible in helping me resolve it). All that being the case. 1. How likely are they to lodge a claim in court? 2. Are they likely to obtain a CCJ without my knowledge and without me having an opportunity to defend myself and if so, is there we I can intervene to prevent that? I don't want any credit report issues as we're looking to get a mortgage in the next few years. 3. What would you do in my shoes, in light of the above, to balance not being taken for a mug with not engaging these clowns for hours of my time to save £145? Thanks in advance.

Hi dx, I just received this yesterday actually, I forgot to post it last night.... Good morning ********, I am assisting ****************** with this case. Please find attached decision form from the Court granting decree of absolvitor on a no expenses basis. I trust that this concludes matters. Kind regards There was an issue with the first interlocutor in that it only granted dismissal, so Shoosmiths had to recall the decree and get a new one. Thanks again for all your help. Obviously, I'm delighted with the outcome but I've learned a lot aswell. Got my expenses cheque here too

wow, poor show, hopefully it won't come to that!

lol, yes very good point. Will update as soon as I hear form the court.

Yet to be ratified by the court but just a formality now thanks again!

I had thought expenses were limited to £300 based on posts ( I think) in the thread but it seems it's limited to 10% of the amount sued for/awarded in claims above £3000 from what I'm reading. Anyway I've agreed to £300 on the basis that decree will be for no expenses and have confirmed that to the court, and on the basis that Cabot send a cheque for £300 within 21 days. They didn't want a decree for expenses against them, hence agreeing to payment out with the court process.

Cabot/Shoosmiths have agreed to Absolvitor with expenses in my favour. Thanks so much for all your help with it guys, and especially dx. I really appreciate everything you guys are doing on the site to help people. I'll donate half the expenses to CAG as a thank you and to reflect all the work that dx has put into helping me with the case. Cheers

Sadly it is. Hopefully we'll be less financialised after the next global financial crisis. Next year if not before is my bet.

Yeah its so sad that people don't end up on sites like this where they can realise that and not be exploited. Don't get me wrong, i messed up and got myself into a lot of debt when i was younger and I'm not saying I'm not accountable. But even with defaults i paid back way more than i ever borrowed and let's not forget that under the current fiat-based monetary system, the money banks lend is created out of thin air and borrowed into existence at zero cost to them anyway! Even if you think that's fair, which i don't, it certainly can't be fair for these parasites to come along decades later and pretend to own a debt that you now owe to them, scaring people into making payments. If the people on this site were to collectively aporoach the FSA, the press and their politicians with what's really going on in this industry, there would be even more outcry and investigation than we have seen to date, particular in relation to certain claimants like cabot abusing the legal system and the low max expenses of the simple procedure with spurious claims they know they can't substantiate, or don't even bother to check they can substantiate It's a disgrace. cost to the tax payer of processing these eventually-abandoned claims must be huge

HI dx, The claimant has lodged a motion to abandon the action could I ask you to delete post 157 or at least remove the line that mentions the name of the solicitor at Shoosmiths. I meant to remove the name of the solicitor in the email I posted up from Shoos but having spoken to the solicitor today he asked me to remove it from this website on the basis that it's defamatory because I referred to him as "a muppet". I'm not worried about that because i don't think it is defamatory since the comment would have to be false for that to apply. One could easily argue that since the action has been raised spuriously and before any evidence of a legal basis for claim has even been found (and eventually could not be found) and then subsequently abandoned the day before a proof, my comments have some merit. Nonetheless, it wasn't my intention to attack anyone personally. I was talking to the solicitor on the recommendation of the sheriff clerk. I told them I wanted absolvitor with expenses and not a dismissal and they said that they'd look into what options I have procedurally and get back to me, but meantime I should contact shoosmiths and explain my position. I did that and explained that given the hoops I have required to jump through in this case to try and get to the bottom of what the claim is about, not least because the principal agent refused to attend court even when instructed by the sheriff, that I wanted absolvitor to be sure the matter could not be rehashed and brought again. I explained that I was considering approaching the FSA on the basis that they are in breach of current guidelines which advise companies not to bring cases which they know are timebarred, as appears to be the case here, (and also on the basis that they are raising spurious cases on a speculative basis). He is taking his clients instructions and will get back to me on Monday as he couldn't reach them today and is out of the office on Monday. He advised there appears to have been a consolidated loan for which the client has been unable to obtain the required documentation, hence the abandonment. Obviously that's something they should have clarified before raising an action and certainly before now. In the meantime, the proof won't go ahead and the claimant's solicitor has advised the court to hold off on delaying with their abandonment motion until he has taken instructions on abandonment with expenses of £300 in my favour. The court advised that if the claimant is not agreeable to that I can lodge an incidental motion to have a hearing on the case in order to argue for absolvitor. I need to wait until Monday to confirm whether that will be necessary. If they decide to raise any further actions in relation to any matter, regardless of the merits, then it would be my intention to involve the FSA and any other relevant bodies to look closely at this claimant, these solicitors and their practices, which amount to nothing more than abuse of legal process, safe in the knowledge that expenses are minimal at £300 in even a case abandoned at the 11th hour. There is now way I am going through this again without taking them to task on their practices to the fullest extent and their behaviour in this case and others on this site would support that.

Yeah fingers crossed

OK will do. I'll just be happy to get absolvitor but expenses would be a bonus. I'll give half of whatever I get to CAG.

NO probs, I really appreciate the help and didn't mean for my post above to sound ungrateful in anyway. Ok I will do. I'm self employed so I'm taking time off to attend but only from myself rather than an employer. It's still lost time of course. I'll be sure to write it all down. The LLoyds calls alone covered 5 hours with time spent on hold lol, though I won't mention those unless i need to when questioned.

Yeah that was my thinking, I don't want to speak to them, but thought I had best check with you just in case. I mean the rules try to promote and encourage negotiation between the parties, so i just wanted to check I wasn't being obstructive in a way that would annoy the sheriff by not answering calls and emails. Deep down though I know that this solicitor is probably only now looking at this case properly for the first time since he raised the case, having wasted a lot of my time (and more importantly yours) with everything that has gone on up until this point. So i'm delighted that you're saying I can ignore him as I suspect he might be calling to try and cancel/postpone the proof, either to give himself more time or to withdraw the case as unless we're completely missing the point, he's now realising that he has a crap case and a sheriff that might tear strips off him for not complying with his orders to appear and produce a valid CCA. And yes I must admit to having a habit of overthinking and overcomplicating things so I apologise for that!

OK I won't reply. The only issue is that I intimated my amendment and list of witnesses via email, so they know it's a valid email address. Doesn't mean I have to correspond with them if I don't want to though. I was actually worried they were calling to drop the case or something, when what I want I really want (perhaps being greedy i Know) is for the sheriff to castrate them on the day and a decree of absolvitor. I'm not sure where you're getting that from DX. I've read all the links I could find that were relevant and all the ones that you have linked to me. I have 19 saved chrome tabs with everything from relevant cases to the SP rules, which I've read several times now. I've had those since the start and added as I went along, so the only time I'm logging in is to see posts on the thread. I can only think that's why it appears I haven't read the things you're referring to. I had also read not to make contact with DCAs or their dogs, but obviously I have to do that to intimate parts of the procedure like amendment etc and doing it by letter or email makes no difference as you're still communicating with them to intimate. I did both so they couldn't say they didn't receive anything and postpone things any further. I'm sorry if you feel that you've nurse-maided me but I assure you I've spent hours reading the relevant materials, several times.

I just received this email from Shoos:- "Dear Mr. XXXXXXX I would be grateful if you could give me a call in relation to Friday’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely How do you think I should respond? I have a missed call from them too. Is it best to ask them to correspond via email only?

OK, I hear you. I know that less is more in my position as Defender, I suppose I just wanted to be prepared with arguments in case I needed them, as unlikely as that might be. I totally understand what you are saying though and I'll keep my mouth shut as much as possible!

Thanks dx, I understand what you're saying now. The hearing takes place on Friday. Is there a specific approach that you think I should take on the day, other than letting the sheriff take the lead if it seems he's going my way I assume? I'll post up tomorrow the points I was thinking of raising and in what order etc and hopefully you can let me know what you think. As per your point above, I thought I'd start with pointing out that "they have failed to comply with the court's order for the principal agent to appear and for an original CCA to be produced, both of which may have shed some light on exactly what debt they are pursuing here". Then go on to say that, "before I give any evidence, I'd like to summarise my position, which is that the claimant's have produced no original credit agreement showing that the debt in question ever existed,, despite having suggested in their claim over 4 months ago that they had one and it would be produced. They have only produced a CCA for what ostensibly appears to be an unrelated loan. They have no proof of having ever been assigned the debt and from who they say assigned it to them, only a letter to me saying "we bought this debt" and have produced no chain of assignation" (as per your comment above, he did seem to be a sheriff who wants to see that) "from the OC to show that they obtained the legal right to recover any debt they may or may not have paid for. Furthermore and in any event, their case is timebarred. Based on any or all of those points my submission is that the claimant has failed to show any legal right of recovery for the debt in question and accordingly my motion today is to ask the court to grant decree of absolvitor with expenses in my favour. If it pleases the court , I'm happy to give evidence in support of those points by dealing with the claimant's averments in more detail." Then just see if he stops me there or asks me to go through the evidence. If I'm lucky, he might already have his mind made up by this stage and I won't have to go through all the specifics flaws in the claim, which I will list here tomorrow for inclusion/exclusin as you see fit (eg the acc number sued for being a current account, the debt not being sold in 2007 as per LLoyds own staff, and certainly not sold to Prime credit who didn't exist at the time. That the payments statements of account relate to the account being sued for, which wasn't a loan account and in any case the payments dates suggest timebarred. That the only mention of the account in question on the direct debit produced is as a funding account for payments to a separate loan account . That the CCA produced is for a loan account and even if it was the debt being sued for, which it isn't, it would also be timebarred. etc etc). Does that sound like a reasonable approach so far? Just get those main points across and see what he says? It's possible the sheriff has changed his mind but the impression he gave last time is that he thought their case was crap and their amendments can't have done much to change that (and if anything only muddied the waters further) , so hopefully he thinks I "don't have to push an open door" again and won't be looking for too much in the way of evidence for me, instead preferring me to leave it to the claimant to hang themselves as you say, with his assistance.

So you think i shouldn't bring up that they have failed to show evidence of assignment to them in 2014 and further have failed to show a chain of assignment leading up to that? I had thought that was a crucial weakness in their case, failing to show that they own the debt, so I'm surprised you don't want me to go there. Unless I've misunderstood? Happy to go with your advice of course.

If nothing else, it's further evidence that Cabot have their facts wrong and supports the idea that they are just fishing. Interesting re Apex, though I suppose noone is mentioning them except the staff at Lloyds, who say Cabot sold it to Apex in 2013. I'm bamboozled by which company owned who and when. But then I suppose that's mostly the point with these things lol.