PCM - High Point Village/Hayes and Harlington Train Station PCN

emeralddreams

Hi, didn't want to create a new thread so hoping my request for advice is picked up. I received a pcm at the same location and made responded to the land owner and received the following response. I forgot to mention that the photos show that I was parked across 2 bays but that was because of how close the car in front was....as you can see in 1 of the pics. The others they've taken in such a manner that you can't tell there was another car parked or are of me coming into and leaving the road. Their rules are completely unjustifiable if all you are doing is picking / dropping people off and there is a lift at the end of the road to take people to the stn.
Would welcome your thoughts and advice.

Coupon-mad

That's a clear example of illegal surveillance by hand-held camera because there's no prominent warning telling you that the VRM will be taken by some lurking third party chancer hiding with a phone, who is paid a bounty per PCN by hanging about and using an app:

https://www.parkingcontrolmanagement.co.uk/vehicle-report/

Here's a couple of reliable expert blogs about this PCM scam (they were on BBC's Watchdog, called out as rogue traders years ago):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html?m=1

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/pcm-uk-lose-case-on-heath-parade-scam.html?m=1

They don't win these cases when people defend.

IMHO this conduct is probably illegal: it breaches the DPA 2018 and the ICO Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras (even hand-held cameras count when used like this).

There is also no valid reason to break up that bay into separate bays and that line isn't prominent at all.

This is entrapment, proven by the fact someone stands opposite and waits to catch people. 

So, 'appeal' (it is a farce but do it) to PCM stating the above and that the supposed breaks in bays are not clear or prominent either, AND there is no prominent t&cs sign in that bay area that could be visible from the car, so you did not 'agree to pay' £100.

Then either ignore them or try IAS for a laugh then ignore them when you 'lose' at the joke kangaroo court offered by IPC firms. Experience shows it's 'pro parking operators' and not independent or impartial.

There is no resolution but you DO NOT PAY THESE THINGS.  Do NOT pay it out of fear. Read the official MSE Guide linked at the top of this page. The penny will drop that these are scam 'PCNs' that are easy to defend in court if necessary, with no risk or CCJ. It's easier than an appeal and completely free to defend.

This month, we need you and if you work for the NCVO then - wow, what a fantastic consumer voice - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE can the NCVO submit an official response to the government's Public Consultation?

Please do it from the NCVO if you are authorised to do that - or pass this link to the persons who can do this on or before 5th September! 

PLEASE bookmark this thread below and do the government's Public Consultation.

Their proposals are wrong and in some parts,  anti-consumer. We must stop them.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

emeralddreams

Thank you very much for your advice and info. It really is much appreciated.🙏

I don't work for ncvo...was invited to an event and had some spare paper....but I'll pass the thread onto those who invited me and ask them to forward accordingly. 

Coupon-mad

emeralddreams said:

Thank you very much for your advice and info. It really is much appreciated.🙏

I don't work for ncvo...was invited to an event and had some spare paper....but I'll pass the thread onto those who invited me and ask them to forward accordingly. 

Oh yes please. If they can fit in a response it will have so much clout. As will your own response and opinion about this illegal (excessive and covert) camera surveillance

Le_Kirk

emeralddreams said:

Hi, didn't want to create a new thread so hoping my request for advice is picked up...............

I think you should,as it gets confusing trying to deal with more than one issue per thread.

Coupon-mad

ANON_MR_X said:

Thanks for your comment. I have revised my defence with this in mind. My defence is now as follows: 

5. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied at High Point Village. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is nearly 3 years old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). 

Hi All. I have received a 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)' Letter from The County Court. It states the Claimant (PCM) has until a given date to pay the court the trial fee.

Anyhow, I need to submit copies of all documents I intend to rely on at the hearing by a deadline which is soon. I have quoted the defence I submitted. My understanding is I need to submit a witness statement to accompany this defence by the deadline?    

Is the hearing soon?

emeralddreams

Coupon-mad said:

emeralddreams said:

Thank you very much for your advice and info. It really is much appreciated.🙏

I don't work for ncvo...was invited to an event and had some spare paper....but I'll pass the thread onto those who invited me and ask them to forward accordingly. 

Oh yes please. If they can fit in a response it will have so much clout. As will your own response and opinion about this illegal (excessive and covert) camera surveillance

Following on, I've now received a debt recovery letter. Not going to pay but is there anyone else I can / should be writing to? I spoke to Trace (debt recovery agents) advising them that no contravention occurred and I had written to their client and not heard back....they simply advised it was too late and that writing to them wasn't following the correct appeals process.
If there is something else I can do whilst waiting for a ccj or likes then please let me know. Thank you

Coupon-mad

Just ignore the £170 threatograms.

ANON_MR_X

Coupon-mad said:

ANON_MR_X said:

Thanks for your comment. I have revised my defence with this in mind. My defence is now as follows: 

5. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied at High Point Village. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is nearly 3 years old the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). 

Hi All. I have received a 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)' Letter from The County Court. It states the Claimant (PCM) has until a given date to pay the court the trial fee.

Anyhow, I need to submit copies of all documents I intend to rely on at the hearing by a deadline which is soon. I have quoted the defence I submitted. My understanding is I need to submit a witness statement to accompany this defence by the deadline?    

Is the hearing soon?

Please do accept my sincerest apologies. Not logged into forum for a while due to some family issues. The hearing was postponed. Thank you for checking.

ANON_MR_X

Hi all, I hope you're all well and happy new year!!

I have my rescheduled hearing in just over a week. Any advice would be very much appreciated. My witness statement I submitted earlier this year is below:

Thank you in advance. 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim when the POC lacks details of breach of contract, with prejudice suffered by the defendant in establishing a suitable defence and witness statement. 

4.     Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (See Exhibit – XXX)

5.     A similar case was dismissed and later appealed by a parking company only to be dismissed again on the basis of an inadequate POC CPMS v Akande (KODP5J30) in 2024. (See Exhibit – XXX)

Facts and Sequence of Events

6.     The Claimant alleges a parking contract was formed at High Point Village. I deny the Claimant’s allegation a parking contract was formed. I was not aware of any restrictions that applied at High Point Village. Due to the age of the alleged breach of contract which is now over 3 years old, I am unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN(s). The Claimant also fails to produce observation time.

Exaggerated Claim

7.   The Claimant’s claim is inflated. The ‘core debt’ from a parking charge cannot exceed £100, and this figure is already generous. The Claimant has added a further £70 per PCN as supposed ‘debt recovery’ costs. I say this is wholly unjustified.

8.   The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published a statutory Code of Practice on 7th February 2022. Its Ministerial Foreword is clear:

“Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

9.   The Government's July 2023 Draft Impact Assessment (DLUHC) states that the actual cost of debt recovery per case is just £8.42 – not £70. Therefore, this case exemplifies exaggerated costs and "double recovery." These fees fund bulk litigation without genuine merit or fact-checking, as the Claimant’s vague and generic Particulars of Claim demonstrate.

Conclusion

10.   The Claimant's conduct is consistent with widespread consumer harm identified by the Government. Their added costs are not genuine losses but part of a profit-seeking litigation model.

11.   I respectfully ask the Court to:

a)     Strike out or dismiss the claim due to lack of merit, poor particulars, and abuse of process;

b)     Refuse to award the falsely added £70 ‘debt fee’;

c)     Consider a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(f) and CPR 27.14(2)(g) and award appropriate costs; including where the Court finds agency exists, consider the award of costs inter alia. 

d) Refer to my Cost Assessments Sheet which details costs that I have incurred (Exhibit – XXX)

12.   If the Claimant discontinues late, apply CPR 38.6 and CPR 46.5 to award costs accordingly.