You really have to wonder if DCBL have any legal knowledge at all about the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The definition of a relevant contract in the Act is relevant contract” 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; So under PoFA the contract is between the land owner and the driver [so not the keeper] although the land owner can delegate their wishes to the lesser human beings that are UKPC. I fail to see why that means that UKPC do not require planning permission for their signs. The relevance of the land owner contract is that if there is no land owner contract then UKPC have no authority to impose their own contract on the driver. [By the way DCBL, BEARS relevance not bares relevance. Dummies.] And lack of planning permission for signs and ANPR cameras is illegal as you can see if you read this article Confused advertisement consent order - a Freedom of Information request to Barrow in Furness Borough Council - WhatDoTheyKnow WWW.WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM Your response to another Information Request shows that on 3rd February 2015 Barrow Council issued to ParkingEye Ltd a Notice of Consent to display their parking sign advertisements at the Range car...

On post 32 PE responded to your snotty letter . What they failed to say was that the keeper could not be held liable for the debt because they had screwed up the PCN. In addition the not specifying the parking period Schedule 4 S9 [2] [a] (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; they also got it wrong on Schedule 4 S9 [2] [e] (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; Did their PCN ask you the keeper to pay the debt? No they dd not. Did they ask you to pass the Notice on to the driver? No they did not. So massive fail.

You must have received a PCN shortly after the 26th October through the post dated the 30th October. If you don't have it now you should receive it with the CPR request you sent. Failing that you will receive it if they decide to take you to Court it will be included in their Witness Statement to you. The first PCN is critical since if it does not comply with the Protection of freedoms act 2012 [ and many of them do not] then they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. So yo as keeper are in the clear. and if you were the driver but have not appealed or told them that you were the driver it will be difficult for them to win should they take you to Court. [Courts do not allow them to claim that the driver and the keeper are the same person]. Whenever you receive the original PCN could you please post it up as it is often the first step in avoiding payment to those rogues.

Thank you for posting the PCN you received. However there was a fair amount missing-probably on the back of the PCN. It is information telling you that if payment is not made within 28 days they will have the right to transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. It may also quote from the Protection of Freedoms Act. They often get the wording wrong so that the keeper does not become liable for the charge. That is dependent on them not being told who was driving hence the reason we are asking to see your appeal in.case you admitted being the driver. So could you please post up the whole PCN minus your details and the car reg.

If you still cannot open it Dave, click on the word "Application" and it may take a few minutes to load .

Hedhehog, I know it is a bit of a bind but I have included a case where the Judge ripped apart the Unicorn extra charge so much that he decided , to cancel the whole claim to teach OPS not to. overcharge again. If you include the whole case and the reasoning behind it OPS might decide not to take you to Court since they are already on dodgy ground in some Courts. file:///C:/Users/ThinkPad/Downloads/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf

The driver is responsible for the charge for the first 28 days from the time you receive the PCN. If it is not paid by then, if the PCN complies with the Act the liability is transferred to the keeper. As so many PCN's do not comply with the Act you would not be liable for the debt.. Had you kept the original PCN we would probably have been able to advise you not to worry since you were not liable to pay the debt. And if you didn't tell them who was driving they would n't know who to pursue. The SAR [you will find it in the CAG library ]will force them to send all the paperwork they have on you so you should receive the Notice to Driver and Notice to keeper copies. If they don't send them within a certain time you can pursue them for not sending them and that will cost them more than they are pursuing you for. Win win.

Thank you for posting the PCN. The good news is that both you and your Mother are off the hook. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 so the charge CANNOT be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible for the charge and as several thousand people with valid motor insurance policies are allowed to drive that car, good luck knowing who to pursue. In order to be able to transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper PE must observe the wording of the Act. And they haven't. Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] states " (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; If you read the PCN to your Mother it does not invite her to pay the charge nor to pass the PCN on to the driver. It may not sound much but it is a major mistake on PE's part and as such the liability to pay the charge is restricted to the driver only. If you have not appealed the PCN then you cannot as yet claim they have breached your Mother's GDPR in relation to sending numerous notices to her asking to pay when they were not aware that she was not the driver. Once she tells them that in her Witness statement and they continue to take her to Court, that is when her GDPR is breached since they should have dropped the case at the WS stage. They have also not complied with the Act again since they are supposed to specify the parking.period. They have not. They have listed the arrival and departure times which is not the same since driving to the parking place from the entrance and driving from the parking space to the exit cannot be described as parking. Whether you can argue that you were not parked even though you were there for almost two hours is a moot point. i

If you haven't got the Notice to driver, do you still have the next PCN-some times call the Notice to keeper If so could you please post it up. If you haven't got it you will get a copy with your SAR.

Can you please post up the original PCN you received in their reply to your SAR We don't need to see the reminders but the original is the all important on as that is the one they rely on to pursue the keeper. If there are mistakes then your Mother is off the hook as only the driver is then responsible for the debt.

Did he mean MULL? I'd be surprised that Euro car parks would even know where Mull was.

Chinoky please tell you friend that the way they are going will end up losing in Court and facing a bill of around £280. Overstaying is not always fatal as there are ways to counteract their claim and he can win in Court. Up to them which way they go. But he has to get involved. For instance where is the original PCN as we need to see it. There can be multiple things wrong with it which means they cannot pursue the keeper for example. If it has been thrown away we will have to wait until the Witness Statement from Highview or perhaps from the CPR that you sent.

I have been looking at the planning permission documents kindly supplied by Peter Parker for the car park. I notice that the parking contract started in March 2019 yet planning permission for the ANPR was not granted until after the 6th May. So much for observing the Law. There is no mention in that application for permission for the signage. Peter Parker suggested that it was not necessary because the signs were too small for pp to be required. However he figures he quoted for the signage was actually for the size of the payment machine and as I said there was no application for signage permission. And BPA recommend much larger signs should be provided and they would require planning permission. So does Llangrannog have pp for their signs? I note too in the objections that it was pointed out then that the internet reception was insufficient to provide a service even before the application was granted, So OPS knew from the start that paying was going to be a problem. So two years after and they are still having the same problems but still charging motorists for some thing that is not the motorists fault should surely merit the Judge granting you exemplary damages as well as kicking their case out.

The PCN is non compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 apart from its late arrival. They are supposed to specify the period of parking. Instead they have used the arrival and departure times which includes the driving to the parking spot and then driving from the spot to the exit which cannot be called parking. And their wording is wrong elsewhere. Part of the reason for the PCN is obviously to get money out of you but another factor is to inform you that if the charge has not been paid within 28 days, the keeper then becomes liable for the debt. They haven't said that probably because they acknowledge that their PCN would have arrived late so they cannot transfer the liability to the keeper. IPC give motorists five minutes Consideration period to give you time to read the terms of parking in that car park to decide if you want to abide by them or leave free of charge. They also give a ten minute grace period at the end to allow for hold ups getting out of the car park. That still leaves 15 minutes for you to find if they are unsure who was driving. Was there anything that could have held you up another 15 minutes? Your child taking time to get them in and out of the car because of being strapped in. Maybe someone disabled or not as nimble as most people? Loads of traffic in the way or couldn't get out of the car park because the main road was busy.? Trolley was heavy laden and it took time to empty it plus return it to the trolley station which was quite a way away from where you were parked? Etc.etc.

There is nothing on the back of your PCN that relates to making the PCN compliant. Therefore as keeper you are not liable. The driver of course is still liable. If you are not going to confront them about Judge Ackroyd now, then please it make the point in your WS. It is kind of rare for Judges to say that the keeper and driver are the same person. So by them sating that case it is designed to scare you but more importantly it might encourage the Judge to come to the same conclusion in your case. Whereas the Court normally take the stance that the keeper and driver are not the same person as Judge Ackroyd stated in post 40. Please reread and repeat in your WS what he said as it is important that your Judge gets the picture.