Let's look at it from the current position. If you parked in their car park without a Permit they had a reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for your details. This is regardless of whether the site was poorly marked or named. Maybe there would be a case if the contract had expired though as the arrangement still appears to be runnng it is difficult to presume the outcome. It is hard to believe that both parties would not have noticed that the contract had terminated so the expectation would be that some agreement to continue would be in place. Similarly I would have thought that UKPC would have some form of corroboration that Savillles did have the ability to sign per pro on behalf of the land owner which could have been produced in Court . I understand that there is no cost to you adding a counterclaim as opposed to waiting until after the case and taking out a case then when most of the facts are known. Now that much has come out since you commencec your counter claim there is a danger that the Judge may decide that you claim was vexatious or frivolous as indicated by UKPC and ask that you pay their costs. I admire your bravery in taking them on and will give you all the help I can for you to succeed against them but I have my doubts that you will get the result you want. I hope I am wrong but will be among the first to congratulate you should you win.

Well done for sticking it out. Almost 5 years of being messed about but you beat them down in the end. Great result.

You remind me of an old boss of mine when engaged in a discussion with one of his friends who was insisting that he was right and my boss said "Even if you were right, you were wrong". At the end of the day you were parked in their car park without a permit which Judges do take into consideration. I understand you argument that there is no cost to raising a counterclaim. In this case perhaps the cost could be in losing the claim if indeed there is a claim. Going to Court and winning requires especially in private parking cases, an overwhelming amount of evidence to counter balance the often duplicitous WSs from th rogues. And that is best done at the end when all the evidence you have gathered from your own understanding of the situation plus what you can garner from their PCN, Claim form and WS. From all of that you have now learned is that the UKPC signage at the entrance is poor and their signs inside their car park are really too far away from where many cars are parked to be even noticed. That is a strong point in your favour for the charge to be thrown out on its own. The "NO Unauthorised Parking "signs are prohibitive, cannot form a contract and suggest that you were a trespasser, ruling out UKPC involvement in any litigation against you which could have brought your claim back into the frame again had you raised it. However it appears that 1-21 the Martletts is the name of the car park as well as the precinct., so that could remove the main spar of your argument. There is still the question of whether there is a current contract which could have swung the case back in your favour had you included it in your claim. I don't know if you can drop your counter claim at this stage nor even if you would want to. Certainly if they also withdrew their case you would be no further forward in finding out if your chances of winning your GDPR case were viable.

I understand that dx but I have seen at least on case where a Judge ruled that as the parking company still had all their signs up and running the car park and therefore with the landlord's approval that the contract had been renewed even though it was not on show nor did we know the revised terms if any. Judge lottery. Their rules, not ours.

This particular car park is pretty small Bazooka though I think one woman got off even though it took her 30 minutes to exit the car park because of the queue in front of her trying to get on the main road at peak time.

If you want, post up your letter before posting and we can advise if anything obvious should be added or subtracted to give you the best chance of a successful outcome.

. Intrepid there is nothing pleases me more than our members getting money off the rogues. However I feel that your over aggressive way of going about it including the speed with which you are doing it may count against you. By counterclaiming you have prevented them from withdrawing their claim prior to Court which, had they done so and it quite likely that they would have, that would have strengthened your case. So bad could have been their their case that you might not have had to take them to Court -just the threat might have been enough for them to come to a settlement. Telling them that they hadn't included their contract would have led to them losing the case on that alone if they still hadn't included it before the Court case. You may not now win your case for breach of GDPR as their contract refers to their parking area as 1-21 The Martletts. Even though we know it refers to the Pedestrian precinct, UKPC appear to also name their car park that too, instead of Parkside. Perhaps to distinguish it from the NCP car park on the other side of the street. Another reason for not counterclaiming is that the contact had already expired .With some Judges that would have been enough on its own to grant you the GDPR breach regardless of the Martletts address had you sued after the case. Other Judges would accept that as the signage etc was still in place that the contract was continuing. Whether you can claim now that the contract was over as part of the breach is debatable as it was not included in your counter claim. I do hope that you go on to win your case against them but you now have a bit of an uphill struggle though I am still hoping for a successful outcome for you. .

You could have added that when signs say "NO Unauthorised Parking" firstly as it cannot form a contract, then the contract between the land owner and the parking company does not apply in relation to an an unauthorised parked vehicle. Secondly that motorist can still be taken to Court for trepass but that can only be done by the landowner not his monkey. And that could have been an extra club in your arsenal. Don't know if you can add that now.

I am pleased that the one occupant was the driver.

The first thing is to let the surgery know that you didn't enter your car registrtaion when you visited and ask them to confirm to Euro that you were a patient on that day and Euro should cancel. The quicker you do that before matters escalate, the more lkely that they will cancel. You could suggest that they put up a sign reminding drivers to enter their vrm. thank you for posting the whole of the PCN which confirms that it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 in two ways. [2][e] of S9 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; Your PCN does not. All it does is to ask the driver to pay which is not enough. In addition under [2][a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. Instead it gives the arrival and departure times of the car as it passes the ANPR cameras which is not the same. That means that you as keeper are not liable to pay the PCN only the driver is now liable. Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person so proving who was driving will be difficult for Euro.

The aim when responding to their WS should be either get them to abandon their claim or give the Judge a heads up on the type of people that run these parking scams. In your case as you have a counterclaim the aim is to go for the second choice. if we look at Point 6 "My Company operates in accordan ce with the Code ". Really? The DVLA banned them in 2018. Point 9 they said the contract was included as Exhibit 1 . Exhibit 1 was not included and yet Joel Little signed the WS that he had told the truth. Point 11 They then claim that they don't need a contract to run the car park which contradicts PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 Section 2 Relevant contact [2] (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; one wonders therefore whether they didn't intend to provide their contract Point 12 Their entrance sign does not form a contract is is just an offer to treat Point 13 they also ahe another signthat atates NO Unauthorised Parking. Not only is that sign unable to offer a contracy because it is prohibitive it also means that anybody who ignores that sign and parks there is a trespaaser which can only be treated by the landowner. Point 14 the driver did not accept the contract because there was no contract Point 16 no plan of the land provided despite the claim that that it has been. Point 18 The driver is not liable to pay the PCN Point 21 under PoFA Schedule 4 S8{2][f ]if payment is not withinn 28 days the keeper then becomes liable to pay the PCN so why is UKPC trying to pursue the driver as well. Only the keeper is now responsible under PoFA. And under what Law does the fact that the keeper does not admit n or deny being the driver mean that they were the driver? This is as far as I have managed to get and I see that you are wanting to send off your WS. I would hope that you might reconsider as in the past you have been perhaps to quick off the mark and sometimes taking a bit more time can reap rewards too. The WS harps on about contratual costs when there was no contract! Plus their PCN does not comply with PoFA. I am tryying to get the Judge to confirm that they should be pursuing the keeper not the driver, who thay have no idea who was driving, and then once accpeted that the keeper is the one liable if they feel there was a contract ;which there isn't] then because the PCN is non compliant, the keeper is not liable either. But that still needs more work.

On second thoughts it may be better to say in your WS that the sign is unlawful as it stands and motorists should be asking for their money back may be enough to decide not to go to Court and risk losing the case and having to repay all the motorists. They wouldn't want to risk that.

I am having great difficulty reading the contract and the windscreen PCN. Could you please repost the whole contract [and only the contract and windscreen PCN please] in a more legible form as there are often things on both that could help your case. For instance on the contract I can just make out that they give the address as HA4 OFY which does not coincide with the PCN. And so far I have yet to see where the Land owner has given permission for Savills to act on their behalf. But so much of the print after that is so garbled that I juast cannot make it out. We don't know if Savills have allowed them to take legal action and whether any Consideration/Grace times have been inserted. Interestingly their signage says they can charge 1.5% for debit and credit card payments. These were banned by Law the year before [January 2018] . While I accept that Rocky didn't pay anything and that Met wouldn't have charged either, nevertheless did that render the sign unlawful and therefore could be ignored?

As long as you were not the sole occupant of the car then in your letter to Starbucks/McDonalds just use "the driver parked the car" not "I parked the car" so you don't reveal who was driving if it was you that should be fine. After writing the letter just check it to ensure that you hacen't inadvertently revealed the driver or post t here and we will give any advice needed. I wouldn't get too worried as this is a well known scam site and Met tend rarely to go to Court since they would probably get hammered. besides they make thousands from the poor dupes who pay up rather than fight.

Many of the parking companies use their ANPR cameras as the parking period when obviously their times bear little relevance to the actual time that a motorist is parked in a parking spot which is what the parking period should be. You have already told them the problems you had on the day and still they are sticking to their arrival and departure times as the yardstick. [You have to understand that their lack of intelligence and greed in not understanding the word parking is pretty prevalent among the parking fraternity.]. The new Private parking Code of Practice which should be in force later this year states quite clearly that the parking period "is not the period between a vehicle being recorded as entering and departing controlled land." So you would question the why chuckle heads in the parkng industry have not devised a method of calculating the real time rather than something that gives them a great advantage over motorists to extract money from them. the clock is ticking. There are two periods involved. The Consideratio period at the start of parkig where motorists look at eh T&Cs in the car park and are allowed a MINIMUMof five miutes to leave should they not want to accept the terms of the car park. At the end of their parking session motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes to exit the car park to take into consideration what happened to you on leaving that day. [Minimum is another word that the chuckleheads also do not understand. though perhaps if we can get the Courts to accept that by not taking into account that they are minimumterms could lead to successful claims for breaching the GDPR of motorists]. It is a shame that in your appeal you revealed that you were the driver because the PCN arrived too late to be able to transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Now only the driver is liable and they now know who was driving. But you do have other reasons for not paying including the fact that G24 do not claim to be the Creditor so why should you pay them.

As Bazooka Boo said much of the PCN missing and it is the missing pieces that can help your case since the PCN is governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 . If the wording does not comply, you as keeper are not liable to pay the PCN. Even if you were the driver as Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person it will be pretty hard to prove that you were the driver. All it needs for you to know the whether the PCN is compliant is to post up the whole PCN front and back.

As Dave has already said there are Consideration periods and Grace periods to be taken into account when private parking is involved. Before looking at that the first thing is to check whether your PCN complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which regulates the private parking rogues. They were very good at twice quoting from the Act but they missed Section 9[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; They didn't do that so they have not complied with the Act which means they cannot pursue you as the keeper only as the driver which they said themselves when quoting Section 9 [2][f] . In addition they are supposed to quote the period of parking but instead given the times of arrival and departure of your vegicle which is not the same thing.Obviously their times include the driving times to the parking place plus later from the parking place to the exit. So removing those times from your 15 minute overtime and that doesn't include extra minutes when your car was held up by stopping for pedestrians or other cars passing in front of you as well as returning the shopping trolley and possibly queueing to get out of the car park. And that doesn't include children and or disabled people causing greater differences betwen their times and the actual parking period which is what is specified in the Act. It is perfectly possible that as much as fifteen minutes longer could be taken in a larger busy car park compared to their spurious ANPR times. You may have noticed sating well done to you in his post. that was for two reasons. The first for giving us all the necessary details surrounding the alleged breach. the second well done was for not appealing a possibly giving away who was driving. As you the keeper is not responsible now for paying the PCN and Highview do not know who was driving they will have difficulty if the take you to Court since Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person which is quite right considering that quite often family members often drive as opposed to the keeper as can loads of other people drive your who have valid insurance motor policies. So don't worry even if you have to go to Court as the odds are in your favour and that's before we see the contract and Witness Statement which often give more ammunition against them.

Thank you for that explanation. So the DVLA was not involved in providing your name to Trace/DCBL.

I am sorry to contradict you Dave but the OP did out themself as the driver. The passenger could not get out of the car which left the driver as the other occupant ie the OP.

Two things Concerned. the first is a minor one as there is a small misprint As I have explained, I would prefer to settle this amicably thAn take legal action ... The second is a serious breach of your GDPR. There has to be a "reasonable cause" to access the DVLA database. As you do not have a car with the registration number that was involved in the alleged breach there was no reasonable cause for an enquiry to be made in your name.

It may also just have been a mistake in not sending them as they wouldn't have said it was their first exhibit if they weren't going to send it to you.

Bilal the way PCNs work with Hire companies is like this. 1 ECP send a Pcn to the hire company. 2. the hire company don't pay the PCN they tell ECP the name and address of the driver plus a copy of the hire agreement with the diver as well as a copy the driver agreeing to be responsible for paying PCNs etc during the hire. 3. ECP should then send a new PCN to the driver as well as copies of everything from the hire company so that the driver is fully aware of the situation and that they agree they were in charge of the car at the time of the alleged breach. 4. if ECP has not sent all of those documents, the hirer is not obliged to pay. THE HIRER LEGALLY DOES NOT NEED TO PAY. I repeated that to emphasise the situation. You will have to check with the hirer whether they received all those documents. He [?] should have received at the very least a new PCN. Could you please get a copy of it and any other documents that were received at the same time. Unfortunately it will take time to resolve the matter and various threatening letters will continue. IF as has been usual in the past, all the documents that should have been sent have not all been sent then the hirer is in the clear despite the continued threats. But we do need to know for sure. I apprecaite it may not be easy but knowing that there may be nothing to pay should help to calm the family. I suspect that when your Father paid he entered the wrong registration number [perhaps his own car number?]

According to PoFA the keeper should inform the rogues within the first month of a PCN being issued who was the driver involved [their name and address]. After that time it would be up to them to decide whether to carry on against your Mother or switch over to you. Once they discover that you won't be in the Country to appear in Court they may be able to revert back to pursuing your Mother. poFA does not appear to cover such a situation so we are pretty much in the dark on that. You would have thought that they would jump at the chance to cancel the case since it was very much a trumped up botch which should never have been started. My own opinion would be that you should continue with using your Mother if at the end when they lose that you pursue them for a breach of GDPR. There is no case. There are no signs at the entrance to indicate that it is a private road and no one would have parked the car there half over the pavement on the wrong side of the road when There were no other cars in the road so could have parked anywhere on that road and your car just reversed a short way into the road to turn around, not to park.

ideally you do not want DCBL to send the contract since without it they cannot prove there is a contract they have no case. I hope you also complained to the SRA about them misleading you requiring you to send them your email address to them referring to the CPR as the reason for when there is no mention of email addresses in the CPR.

It might be worth checking with the Council or one of the shops in the Martlets to confirm the street is pedestrianised and confirm the name of the car park. it might be the Martlets but it cannot be 1 to 21 the Martlets so your car cannot have been parked between 1 and 21 of the Marlets.