One can only imagine that the IPC and BPA inhabit some other planet where good sense is overcome by greed and the inhabitants have infected some of the leaders of car parks in Britain to join in their greed on the spurious grounds of "legitimate interest". rather then face The reason that more PCNs are being issued is twofold. The first one is the ever increasing rules introduced by the parking rogues for motorists to fall foul of. They try to charge you £100 for either putting in a wrong reg. number or failing to fill in your reg number inside the store. Despite having paid the entrance fee!! The second reason is that with the new Private Parking legislation coming in the rogues know that their gravy train is coming to an end so they are picking on any and every transgression by motorists in the meantime regardless of the legitimacy of the charge. For instance they are sending out PCNs for vehicles overstaying by less than five minutes knowing that the majority will pay up rather than go to Court. And few if any of the others who don't pay will pursue them for breaching their GDPR . Of course none of those cases that don't pay ever end up in Court.......... One only has to look at the usual suspects among the parking fraternity who end up on Trust Pilot and read some of the stories where had the motorists been aware of help from Companies such as us, they could have avoided paying any monies at all. I would refer to some of these parking companies as crooks if I was allowed to yet they all come out claiming in overbearingly pious terms how they are saving car park owners money by preventing motorists from breaking T&Cs thus freeing the car parks for more visitors. Absolute balderdash or some similar word. The fact is that the owners lose more customers who never return to those car parks after being given an unwarranted PCN than ever were lost by the odd few motorists that ever straddled two parking spaces etc.

Thank you for your post. I hadn't heard of the debate in the Lords so have been very interested in reading about it. It is about time the Government stopped pandering to the private parking companies and put the Bill into practice. Few people believe that any of the rogues would go bankrupt within a year and that includes the private parking companies themselves . And if any of them did go bankrupt the cause would be their own poor financial practices -the majority would survive though they would have to get used to not making the huge windfall profits they currently enjoy. While their scams would become a thing of the past I am sure they will come up with others in an attempt to keep beating the system. .

I think you should include the time that you wrote your initial letter to them. Otherwise it seems that it has only been a couple of months that you have been concerned about their false accusations.

I would add " No matter how good your lawyers are you have no chance of winning in Court. But if you want to add their bill on to my costs that is up to you."

I would have thought that when they see your evidence plus the number of th priciples thye have broken they will not want to go to court. It would be a shame if you didn't get some sort of recompense from them.

I am sorry, you did include your original PCN but you redacted so much of the necessary in formation-times and dates. A few minutes over time can be argued away but over 38 minutes is not easy to explain . Is there a reason why you were so much longer than the time you expected? Thank you for the photos of the car park showing ABC management faciliities running the car park then. Of course they went into liquidation in 2016 so were not members of the BPA or the ISC at that time so were not capable of having a relationship with the DVLA nor did they have to comply with PoFA 2012. CEL were mentioned but in very small print and appeared to be minor partners in the relationship. ABC appear to be the major company running the car park so one would expect that the contract to run the car park would be in their name. If CEL were involved one would expect that they would comply with KADOE terms and show the BPA membership logo. The signs appear to show that the car park is run by ABC a company in liquidation so no breach of their T7Cs could have occurred.,. the PCN does nor comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 since it does not specify the parking period. Obviously the ANPR cameras only record the entry and departure times of vehicles but have no clue how long it takes for motorists to find a parking spot and then drive into it being careful to park between the lines and then later leave the parking spot and drive to the exit. This can take anywhere from a few minutes to perhaps half an hour depending on the volume of traffic in the car park at the time and how difficult it may be to leave the car park and filter into a busy road , not to mention returning the trolley tio the car park or strapping children or disabled people int o the car before being able to drive off.. You can also complain about their LOC bei I will post it when I find it.ng sparse on info. leading to the Court cancelling the case altogether but I cannot find it at the moment.

I have been looking at your case from the point of breaches of GDPR. The Data Protection Act sets out eight principles. These are that information is: Used fairly and lawfully Used for limited, specifically stated purposes Used in a way that is adequate, relevant and not excessive Accurate Kept for no longer than is absolutely necessaryCEL Handled according to people’s data protection rights Kept safe and secure Not transferred outside the European Economic Area without adequate protection So if we look at the 1st principle -sending you demands for money that was never owed must mean that it was unfair and unlawful to demand money with threats . Principle 3 was breached since under PoFA CEL are supposed to use reasoable cause when dealing with the DVLA. How they could get your details when you have never owned that car means that CEL did not adhere to their Code of Conduct and the DVLA should be asked why they gave your details when they had no reasonable cause. There is no doubt that they failed Principle 4. 5 .CEL have kept you r data for around two years when they shouldn't have had it at all. 6. By passing your data on to debt collectors and the Courts, as well as falsely obtaining your data from DVLA is another obvious fail That is 6 breaches out of 8. That should surely be at least £3500. There may be an additional charge of fraud considering your ccj was for £275 so it looks as if they have slid through an extra amount . Check with the site on that and see what the concensus is.

You might add that until a Judge decides, a parking Charge notice is just an invoice. Many of the cases that go to court are thrown out though this one rarely goes to Court because even Met know that it is a scam and won't stand up as valid under the scrutiny of a Court. Then include the video to confirm the scam. After seeing that Santander shouldn't change their mind.

Sorry Dave I was doing the same thing you were doing only taking longer to do it.

What a bunch of shysters they really are. You have told them several times, before they issued the LOC that they had the wrong person. You returned innumerable letters saying you were not the right person including their LOC which had they opened their returned mail they would have understood the situation. [No I am sorry they wouldn't have understood as they are pig ignorant ]. You could write back to them saying "I am in receipt of your letter blaming me for not replying to your letter which was intended for some one else who lived some where else who I don't know and whose car I have never owned! On top of that I have phoned you and written to you over the past two years advising you that I am not the person you are pursuing. And if your mail office was better than your tracing agency you would have been given the letters I have returned unopened marked "Not known at this address". I have photos of those letters and one of them would have been your Letter of Claim hence the reason I did not respond to it. What a wonderful business system you have. You send out a PCN which if the recipient does not reply to you then find another person in another town with a similar name and hound them with debt collectors and solicitors threatening them with ever increasing [and unlawful amounts]. I realised that when I saw so many other people claiming you had done the same to them as you did to me when I checked you out on Trust Pilot. You have to be careful with this plan though as when the word gets out to the Judges you may find it difficult to obtain CCjs in future where the defendant is not in attendance. So you will forgive me if I treat with derision your comment that you rectified YOUR mistake without delay. Two years is some delay. Do you have any idea the fear I have been going through since your finacial demands have been coming to my door ? Almost two years of harassment demanding ever larger unlawful amounts plus threats of being taken to Court, bailiffs ainvolved nd CCJs for a debt I have never owed., And then I discovered that you had managed to have a CCJ in my name. I was both terrified and angry as I knew that my good name had been trashed and I was being labelled as a debtor. I didn't know what to do at first since you had ignored all my attemts at proving I was not the person you were supposed to be pursuing. I then spent a lot of time and effort writing to the DVLA, the Credit companies, the ICO, the Registry company etc in an attempt to clear my previously good name. Eventually I received the information I needed to be able to get you to cancel the unwarranted ccj. To date I still have not had as much as an apology for all the torment I have been through in the past two years. All you have done is blame me for your mistake and witter on about the amount I am asking for to compensate for besmirching my name with debt collectors, ,solicitors, credit reference agencies and the Courts. Plus the time I have spent being ignored by you and going through the anguish of your threatening letters followed by the many from debt collectors which I have kept for the Court so that the Judge can see see their threatsand what a rotten bunch of rogues are involved in the parking industry. I think £3500 is cheap when you consider what I have had to go through these past years. All the stress and worry that I, an innocent woman, has had to endure without a single apology and only a grudging mention of a "Mistake". More like a major blunder that has caused me inordinate pain and worry. So to find out that this is by no means the first time you have made this "mistake", I consider that £3500 is a small price to pay. See you in Court. Something along those lines there. I would keep in the Trust pilot piece as I am sure they would prefer that a Judge did not know of that and may be keener to settle out of Court since a Judge may offer you more than just £3500. See what you and the Site team think. It can be improved and I can only guess at the anguish you have gone through since their first letter..

I agree that Hire companies should know the process of handling PCNs from private parking companies. At the same time Met when sending a PCN to a Hire company should have sent a PCN with full instructions to the Hire company on how to deal with the PCN. From their point of view they have had a coup since they have been paid quickly albeit I guess only half the amount they asked for. Had Avis not paid and complied with the regulations concerning PCNs Met would probably have received legally nothing from Foilman and Avis would not have been guilty of damaging relations between themselves and their hirers aka customers. Now they have a problem of their own making. Their hirer is demanding his money back as there is no proof yet of breaching Met's T&Cs and Avis have failed to carry out the instructions on the PCN.

I would have thought that the Courts would take into consideration her financial situation especially as this isn't a question of not not filing a change of address but a breach of her GDPR and waive the Court fee. Can't hurt to ask and PE have provided the website to ask. I have to say that I am surprised by PE's attitude since it is their mistake sending the papers to England when tha address there has never been her address.

The instructions on this PCN are not intended for a Hire company since there is no mention of the extra details required from Hire companies. Not only do they have to give the name and address of the hirer but also the hire contract and the agreement by the hirer on their responsibility to pay for any breaches. In the early days of PoFA the parking rogues loved writing to Hire companies as almost of them paid up straight away and then charged their hirers for what they had done regardless of whether the hirer had breached anything at all/

Did you watch it Xerzes?

Ideally we would need photos of their signage to see if they have included "no Stopping " in the car park. Would be pretty unusual since to either back into a parking space or back out of it would require stoppping to change from reverse to forward. Your appeal in this case is hardly a problem since the whole PCN is rubbish. First, they haven't specified a parking period on the PCN [the photos don't count] And even if they had it is obvious that you had to drive from the entrance to the parking place and then leave the parking space and drive back to the exit so the time spent turning you car could only have been a matter of two minutes- ish which could hardly be called parking. On top of that there is a five minute consideration period to allow motorists to read the signs and decide whether to accept the terms or leave. in addition to omitting the parking period [the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 section 9 [2]a] they have also missed the words in brackets in this part of Section 9 [2][f] 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; Interesting that they didn't clobber you for parking in a disabled spot. Perhaps they thought that it would be pushing matters too far had they included that too. No that wouldn't be it. there must have been another reason.

There is another argument you could use. They used ANPR to get your reg number on entry. so the number you entered at the cash machine shouldn't have been accepted in a proper system as that number shouldn't have been recognised. But when you entered a different number they accepted your money so it follows that they accepted your change to their system. If they did not agree to the change you made they should not have accepted your money. PS Just because Excel stated that you had admitted being the driver deosn't mean that you did say you were the driver....................

I wouldn't worry too much- these cases are usually lost by the parking rogues. You paid and in a famous case in Baroness Walmsley v TFL [she had also entered the wrong reg.number and this was in an appeal Court] the Judge sais the Law is concerned by those who do not pay for their ticket. She had paid so all charges were dropped . You paid so all Excel rubbish about entering your reg number is just that -absolute rubbish. A number of other things. Their Claim form has not decided if they are taking you to Court as the keeper or the driver they must make up their mind. that is one reason why Dave asked if you admitted you were the driver. There are extra protections if you were the keeper but who was driving has not been revealed. Goes to show their limted educational knowledge by using Principle Debt on the letter Before Claim rather than Principal DTime and again these charges get thrown out of Court ebt. That will be the only time they will have anyDprinciples in all your case. They have also added an extra £70 to the bill despite the signage stating £100 as the maximum payment.Time and again these unlawful extras get thrown out of court but still they persist in claiming them. Why you ask? most people prefer to avoid Court so they just pay up and heir payment may well include the £70. I told you that had no principles so well done for fighting these rogues. You may have noticed that the signagepictures that they sent are in a larger font than the rest of the documents they included. This is because the signs in the car park often ahve too small a font size for motorists to see or notice the contents of the signs and Judges throw out the cases where the signage is poor. Hence the reason why they have increased the sizes on your documents to tryand bamboozle the Judge and you. They wouldn't increase the size for you if they felt they were of a legal size would they? See what I mean about their principles. Not a single one. If you look at the Welcome sign first there is too much information on it to be able to take it all in as you are driving past. Second the bit about entering the correct vrm iw way too small to be acceptable. Moving on the Notice to keeper- the document has to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which governs the private parking rogues. If the original PCN doesn't comply with the Act then the keeper cannot be held liable for the debt. Of course if you have already outed yourself as the driver then it doesn't matter that the keeper is out.

The trouble is Nicky Boy is that if the hirer does not pay within 28 days, the keeper is then responsible so from that point of view of Avis it is better to pay the reduced sum and claim it back from the hirer rather than risk having to pay £100 and thereby costing the hirer more money. Many other companies do advise hire companies what to do when the hirer has breached the T&Cs.

I feel Met parking took a liberty when they sent the PCN to Avis. They knew that they were dealing with a Hire company yet the PCN did not contain any informaton to Avis on how to deal with the PCN. Had Avis been told that they could provide certain information to Met in order to avoid them being liable for the debt should the hirer not pay. But of course by not giving that information Avis decided to pay straight away, to cover themself at half price, and once they paid there is virtually no way to get that money back from Met. It is interesting that they charged you with an overstay rather than leaving the car park to go to McDonalds. One would think that the free time would therefore have been 30 minutes. Given that you are entitled to a ten minute grace period and they have used cameras to record your arrival and departure times which is not the parking period that would easily cover the extra minute. It would take longer tan a minute for you to enter the car par and find a place to park and then later drive from the parking spot to the exit which is what the parking period should be. Pointing these factors out to Avis plus letting them know that these PCNs are speculative invoices and MET don't go to Court since they know they would lose as it is a scam site. Include Joe Lycett's video on Youtube which he did four years ago They may realise that they were wrong to pay the PCN and repay you without having to go for a charge back. I have a feeling that the Hire companies do have some sort of arrangement with the parking rogues about how they can pass the charge on to the hirer and not be liable in the future should the hirer not pay the PCN.

Well done on winning. I doubt that itt has anything to do with where you live. Met knows they are on to a good scam and they make their money from the majority of motorists who just pay up and they know they have a very slight chance of winning in Court. So sending in a response to their claim means that you were unlikely to pay them so they cut their losses and ran. But well done for standing up to them and not paying.

Even though it's dark the cameras can still pick out your car registration, as you found out when they sent the PCN. As for your car being cloned, you would surely know if you were in the car park and it wouldn't be advisable to lie about it if you were thinking of going down that route. The way to win is to beat them with their failure to observe the Law and they are good at that failing and make money hand over fist as a result.

At long last we have both the front and back of the same PCN. So we have a PCN that does not comply with PoFA because of PE not asking the keeper to pay the PCN. In addition they have failed to specify the period of parkin since the ANPR cameras only show the arrival and departure times of vehicles which obviously cannot include the driving to a parking spot and later driving from that parking spot . On top of that with no planning permission that is three strikes against PE and yet they have the effrontery to take motorists to Court for some minor infringement that PE themselves made up and most car parks manag perfctly well wothout these sharks. As I said in a previous post PE now cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper so do not divulge who was driving and they will have a very hard job to win should it go to Court.

I also made a mistake by not noticing that PE has included the fact that they are the Creditor but they still are not compliant because neither PCN asks the keeper to pay the charge. Trying to compare both PCNs is very difficult and time consuming since none of your downloads have a copy of both the front and back of the same PCN. Plus I think you have deleted the times that you were in the car park though on one of them you were there for 44 minutes longer than the two hour free period. I also don't know if you deleted the times on the PCN or PE didn't include them as t.hey are supposed to include the parking period on the PCN Also in the Karelius thread I wrote that I had found two Hallsville Quarters. Now I cannot find the other so am asking if you know where the other is. if there are two then that is another fail with the PCN since PE did not specify by use of the post code or the Canning Town address to identify where the car park was.

I'd go the other way Nicky. i would want them to pursue the keeper since PoFA states that the keeper is liable if the PCN is not paid within 28 days. Only after they explain that they are pursuing the keeper is the time to point out that there is no keeper liability.

Hi Karalius/Bardakas I just found your previous post back in October 2020. I take it that PE didn't procede with their claims against you back then. You could just send them your original snotty letter to show them that you haven't forgotten them.