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.

The wording of your PCN compared to the previous one is totally different. Both wrong, but totally different. Do you have the other side of your PCN? If so could please post it up. At the moment both PCNs do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. Only the driver is. As long as there is nothing on the back of your PCN to contradict what I said. I know they quoted a case where they won in which they say the keeper said he wasn't the driver but the Judge declared that he reckoned he was the driver. However in that case it wasn't a two hour free car park but a permit controlled Church land. The keeper admitted that he and several drivers had used his car to park there so couldn't be sure if he was the one who parked on that day. He also said that he had not seen the signs. If he had been there several times then it is reasonable to surmise that he had seen the signs and understood them So the Judge doubted his veracity . As he was aware that the ground was permit controlled and had made no attempt at obtaining a permit the JUdge took a dim view of his behaviour and found him guilty. Yours case is nothing like his and as you are definite that you were not the driver it is highly unlikely that you will be found guilty. But I think you should go in at them strongly demanding that they provide the evidence that you said you were the driver since you have always maintained hat you weren't and would like to have a record for the Court that what they declared is wrong. You have never stated that you were the driver and would like them to withdraw that statement or produce the evidence. Should it get that far as Court you do not want the Judge to think you might have been the driver so you have to tackle it head on straight away so the Judge knows the situation. By adding the piece about Judge Ackroyd they are trying to get you worried that you could lose because your Judge might not believe you and also a nudge to your Judge that it is possible the the keeper and driver are the same person. This is confirmed by Judge Ackroyd in that case- "The first issue to decide is the issue of identity. The claimant, of course, has to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. It is not to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; it is on the balance of probabilities, which is the civil standard of proof and the court has to be satisfied on that standard whether the defendant was the person who parked his vehicle. There is no identification evidence, nobody saw him park, he parked early in the morning when in all probability it was dark. He was not seen to drive away his vehicle. The minister cannot provide identification evidence." The Balance of Probabilities. They have to provide something that helps prove you were the driver. And it may be that from your phone for instance, you could prove that you were nowhere near the car park at the time of the alleged breach. Confront them and point out that Courts do not believe that the keeper and the driver are the same person

The Windscreen notice [the Notice to Driver ] is supposed to specify the parking period as per the Protection of freedoms Act 2012. It doesn't it only tells the time the ticket was written. This should be followed by A PCN often called the Notice to keeper. It doesn't as it calls itself a Reminder which it isn't. But it is written up as a Notice to keeper without apparently showing the pictures of the car.It also does not specify the parking period which it should. In addition the time quoted does not agree with the Notice to Driver and you were certainly not there at 3.45 am as the driver was shopping at the time. The NTD states the car was parked at B7J Plumbing which is listed as 331-331 Greenford road, the Reminder states 325 Greenford road so they cannot get the address where you parked right or when. Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e] states- (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; So they have failed to specify the time and they have missed off the statement within the brackets therefore they have not complied with the Act which means they cannot pursue the keeper. Only the driver is liable. On top of that the Signs in the car park are prohibitory and therefore it is not possible to form a contract between the motorist ad the parking company.And nor can they add £60 on to the PCN since the Act is quite clear only the amount on the signage can be pursued in Court. The Judge should throw this case out of Court because of the errors in the PCNs and you could argue that you never received a proper Notice to keeper as all you got was a Reminder. A catalog of mistakes. An embarrassment of a document. And all that before they even send the contract and the signage. where there could be further mistakes.

As Nicky Boy rightly said, the PCN is a joke, private car parks are governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This gives the parking rogues to ability to be able to transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper after 28 days should the driver not have paid the charge within that time. However the previous is that the rogues have to comply with the Act or the keeper never becomes liable if they don't comply. This one comes nowhere near complying, all the Rogues can do is keep writing to you hoping you will pay. As long as they do not know who was driving they are stuck as hundreds of drivers are able to legally drive your car.

All the things that were wrong with the other PCN are also wrong with this one so once again they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. The only difference with this one is that you overspent by a few more minutes which won't be as easy to brush away than the Waitrose one. But as Dave said, appeal and see what happens. Use the fact that they have failed to abide by the rules of the Act and that as the keeper you are no responsible for the charge but they are still threatening you which seems unfair. With the CEO you can say you enjoyed shopping so much that you ran over time but the overage was not as much as they state because they are not adhering to the PoFA parking period but instead making their own rules which favour them to the detriment of your customers. Good luck.

@SportingModel I am sorry not to have acknowledged the fact that you looked up PoFA and found another slip up. I often wonder if people do reference PoFA when they have had something from quoted to them, so well done.

Might be worth a letter to the ICO admitting you did mess up but you don't think that they should have charged the additional amount since it is in breach of PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 7[2][c] (c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice; The notice which is the sign in the car park-so no more than £100. The extra amount they charge is usually the payment to the debt collector working on a no win no fee basis. The DCA obviously did not win as you ended up in Court so why are they being paid? Many Judges keep throwing out the spurious additional charge stating it is an abuse of process or attempting a double recovery and of course with the extra amount 66 to 70% addition it is certainly a penalty. Up to you.............you might get the £70 refunded which would be a win.

Yes ECP do not seem to understand the details of PoFA. Schedule 4 section 54 [1]and [2]Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle of the vehicle 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; Section 6 states- 6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9. As their NTK is not in accordance with paragraph 9 they cannot pursue the keeper. Yet they blithely continue as if there is nothing wrong with their PCN and trying to pursue you when they have breached the Act themselves. From where I am it doesn't look as if you have breached their T&Cs at all. If you have retained proof of your shopping on that day an email to Waitrose CEO james.bailey@johnlewis.co.uk explaining your situation [without mentioning the sleeping bit] you may well get it cancelled.

If that is the one then the entrance sign says two free hours parking. Inside the car park appears to be only one other sign which is close to the exit and facing away from motorists driving in. That sign explains that if you want to stay for more than two hours you have to pay . Of course those pictures were taken back in 2018 so more signs may have been added since. Regardless, the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 [Gog how many times have I said that in the past two weeks?] The first thing wrong is that they have not invited the keeper to pay the charge. Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][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 The second thing is that Section 9[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; It doesn't even mention it let alone specify it. All they have done is give the arrival and departure times which as that involves driving from the entrance to the parking spot and later driving from the parking place to the exit can hardly be described as parking. That means that they cannot pursue the keeper as they have failed to comply with the Act. Only the driver is now liable and as you have not appealed they do not know who was driving.As hundreds of motorists with valid motor insurance policies are able to drive your car and the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will have their work cut out to win against you.

Did the Judge allow include the extra £70?

Might be too late now but Tesco have several different CEOs depending on which branch of Tesco you want. The group CEO for Tesco stores is ken.murphy@uk.tesco.com