Can't you return the items and buy somewhere else? From what I've seen of Littlewoods they seem very expensive in any case.

Then take the line of defence that no valid contract was entered into, as she obviously wasn't aware of the consequences, which is an illegal penalty in any case. This is a better strategy anyway IMO. If they say her appeal has failed, ignore them, as they have no authority to judge 'appeals': it isn't a real fine, it's an invoice from a cowboy company trying on a [problem].

I disagree. Not that I'm saying the demand is valid, but the issue of whether a ticket was physically placed is irrelevant. In fact a private company cannot issue a PCN at all, since PCN has a specified meaning under the 1991 RTA. All they can do is issue an invoice for services supposedly provided.

By the sound of it, RJB has probably admitted being the driver in his initial letter to them. There are very likely other reasons not to pay though. What do the signs in the car park say? What does the ticket say?

I think the fact that the ticket purports to be official in several ways is an extremely important aspect. The money has been paid largely because of this misrepresentaion, and the recipient of the ticket has been the victim of what can only be described as a deliberate [problem] intended to cause this result. This makes it very clear that legally, the money must be refunded, in addition to the fact that criminal offences have been committed by the security company.

What does the sign say int he car park? Does it say you don't need a ticket if you are a customer? The legal basis for issuing private parking tickets is very flimsy, especially since contractual penalties are unenforcable. The only way it could be enforcable is if they showed you had agreed to pay £50 as a straightforward fee in return for parking. Even in that highly unlikely circumstance the charge would be owed by the driver, not the owner/keeper.

There I have to disagree. If everyone had to apologise for 'hurt' caused everytime they expressed their opinion, then new ideas would never get heard, and we'd be forever trapped in the current status quo.

They do it to try and fob off the uninformed. Just because they claim it somewhere doesn't make it true.

Yeah the quality of TS is highly variable, but that is a particularly useless piece of assistance even for them. The BPA is just a PR front for the [problematic] you are trying to complain about. They even admit as much on their website.

If they doubt the authenticity then why not ask to see the serial number when the car user returns? Is having the attendant go to that small trouble really a worse result for society than forcing the carer of a disabled person to hand over a large wad of cash that they probably can't afford? The fact that the appeal may be upheld the first time is irrelevant: 90% of people will just pay up the cash when threatened even if it causes hardship.

I think you need to keep on at the police. They always say it's a civil matter the first time, but it's not. It's an offence because they have passed the ticket off as official, and have used deception to induce payment. Ask the company to justify using a black and white chequered border on their ticket: what is this supposed to represent? It's hardly the internationally recognised symbol of an invoice for parking on private land. It can be intended to imply only one meaning: a police ticket. Definitely cancel the cheque if there is still time. There is no way that money is owed: if you held a disbaled badge then you complied with the sign regardless of whether it was displayed. Council or police parking rules regarding display of badges do NOT apply to private parking companies.

The law is somewhat ambiguous. It doesn't make clear whether the vehicle ahead can't be stationary when you enter the box, or when you stop; this makes a huge difference. Presumbaly it needs a test case There is also a user on Pepipoo who is an expert on what the specs of the box markings must be: I think he has founds several that are invalid.

If they are attempting to limit you to 28 days for returning faulty goods (as opposed to buyer's remorse) then not only can they not do it, but they are committing an offence.

No, they're full of it. I would report them to the police for offences under the Administraion of Justice Act, and for attempting to obtain money by deception by making that false statement.

The item is faulty if it doesn't work as advertised on the box. If it claims to work on a certain operating system with certain specs, then it must work on all such machines. The EULA is irrelevant since it is not incorporated into the sales contract before purchase, and even if it were it could not exclude rights under the Sale of Goods Act. Also an EULA cannot form a second contract on installation of the software (as the maufacturers claim it does) because their consideration is past, i.e. you have already paid to use it, so clicking 'I accept' is a "bare promise".