Thank you for posting the full sar. So they definitely did place the PCN on your vehicle only to remove it 10 minutes later apparently because of a possible problem with the driver which seems highly unlikely [the reason for the PCN removal ]. Did the driver even see the warden at all while they were photographing the car . They did take several pictures spread over 12 minutes or so using a flash so the driver would have seen the car being photographed had they been there. Very strange. You said that you had an onboard camera -are you able to go back and see what happened? Was the warden wearing UKPC clothing? In any event that PCN has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. That should be a Notice to Driver and the follow up PCN should not be sent until 28 days AFTER the day the first PCN was given were it a postal PCN. Instead the knuckleheads have issued the follow up PCN on the 28th day of their dodgy first PCN and so totally blowing all their machinations to get over the fact that the windscreen ticket wasn't a windscreen ticket. In neither case, even if they had been sent properly, they were non compliant. neither of them showed the period of parking which is specified in the Act. Both just show a time of issue at 20.02 but no end period. Their "mistake" in not giving 29 days before issuing their keeper Liability notice, makes the PCN more than just non compliant. It means that the PCN was unlawful and probably deliberate as had UKPC waited until the correct time to send that Notice, it would have delayed it until the Monday. And as they probably knew that had not received the original windscreen PCN perhaps they thought it better to rewrite the Law. Part of that is conjecture but the basic fact is correct-the Notice was unlawful. And for that there should be repercussions. My first thought was the ICO but as it isn't really a breach of data protection it goes higher than that. Perhaps the Site Team would know. I did look at the Legal Ombudsman but they are for complaints against lawyers. I cannot imagine a decent lawyer even countenancing such a thing though were are dealing with third rate ones when involved with some parking companies. For reference PoFA Schedule 4 S8 and S9 [2][f] f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— Their PCN dated 12/04/24 states "as 28 days have now elapsed since the Notice to Keeper was given, Parking Control management [UK] Ltd. [the creditor] are now able ...........to recover the unpaid parking charge from......... the registered keeper. The original PCN was marked by them as being deemed delivered 15/03/2024 so 28 days +1 =13/04/24. Their letter was sent one day early which means they altered or ignored the law . I have never seen that "error" on any other Notice from any of the parking companies. As the Member did not receive the original PCN which was originally a Windscreen ticket but they then changed it to a postal one for some fanciful reason the whole scenario reeks of skullduggery. I am going to ask again from Hamz why their warden might have felt scared about a confrontation with the driver but even if there was a chance the PCN was placed on the windscreen and not removed for around a minute but pictures had already been taken so why remove it? And then why produce a brand new keeper Liability Notice the like of which I have not seen before.

I think it was your response to their claim form that scared them off. We would normally leave that until the Witness Statement because that doesn't give them enough time to counteract a good WS. However DCBL are cowards just like their bailiff section all bluster and heavy with people who don't know how to deal with them but back down quickly when up against tougher opposition. I read your defence again and tried to think who wrote it as one of the things that it did was to point out the failings in the cases that the rogues often put in to help their flawed arguments. didn't sound like anyone from MSE and National Consumer Service have gone under. B789 would be a likely candidate but after that I am struggling to think who else might have helped.

The CEO of Tesco Plc is ken.murphy@uk.tesco.com

That is great news John. I guess that they bottled when they saw your defence-very detailed and headed off some of the arguments that they would have used in their WS. Why would they risk going to court having to answer all those points and finding someone to rebut them would probably cost more than what the Court would have awarded them had you lost [£100 ] since no one at DCBL has that level of knowledge . And they do cave in when they see they have a fight on their hands.

You were given this PCN because you overstayed not because you went to Starbucks or MaccyDs from the other car park. I assume therefore that the parking time is only 30 minutes as you were recorded as being there for 38 minutes. Given that there is a Consideration time and a Grace period as well as the time between their photographs of your car arriving and leaving one wonders why they gave you a ticket. Force of habit I suppose. Because they are on airport land which is governed by Bye Laws that supercede PoFA we do not usually look at their PCNs there because in none of them can the charge be transferred from the driver to the keeper as would normally happen after 28 days if the charge is unpaid and the land is not subject to Byelaws. In your case as they have failed to specify the Parking period which is the time car is spent actually parked in a parking space not the bit that they include which is driving from the entrance to the parking space and the other bit from the parking space to the exit. As that reduces the lawful time you were actually parked I would suggest that they have breached your GDPR.

Met are out of order in this new version of their PCN. They show your car arriving and leaving via the ANPR cameras. They then go on to describe this as the parking period knowing full well that since your car still has to drive to a parking space and later drive from the parking space to the exit. How this can be described as a parking period with so much driving involved is beyond me.

I used to go to the Sainsbury's in the Cromwell Road London and my wife used to get PCNs there. I just spoke to a manage onsite and they were good enough to get them cancelled. If you take in the PCN , they photograph it and that is the end of it. Which is what should happen with major companies when their customers are ripped off by the rogues. Are you listening Mcdonalds and Starbucks?

well you could begin by laughing. the idiots at Europarks have had two attempts at sending you a compliant Notice to Hirer and have failed both times. For the second time they have quoted 28 days to respond but the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 14 [2][b]requires 21 days notice. They keep asking who was driving which is irrelevant, only the hirer is liable which is why the notice is to the hirer which seems way over their heads. They should have sent you a copy of the original PCN , your hire agreement and confirmation that you are responsible for motoring offences at the same time, which I assume they didn't do once again. You have more chance of being made a Dame of the British Empire than losing against these numbskulls. Just relax and ignore anything else they send you. I doubt they will send a letter of Claim but if they do let us know straight away so we can have a laugh and send them a snotty letter.

Amount of PCN £100 Amount claimed £125. Where did the extra £25 come from ? They can only claim what is on the signs in the car park.

Your case is not looking too good at this stage. Not helped by the car park not appearing on Google Street view. Interesting that UKPC seem to think that Walcot Yard is off Walcot Road when it is off Walcot Street. Part of Walcot Yard has the postcode BA1 5DW which is a building called North Range. You would have to find out where in Bath they would know the specific post code for the car park there since if it were the 5DW ending you may be able to claim that you weren't in BA1 5BG Walcot yard, Walcot Road, but BA1 5DW Walcot yard, Walcot Street. But probably the main help would come from the site manager. A written statement from him explaining the informal situation with the land owner or better still finding out who the land owner is and contacting them might help. though getting UKPC to cancel at this late stage will be next to impossible. I see they are trying to scam you out of £70 or is £60? 1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. Amount Claimed ~170 Either way in this case the Judge threw out the whole case-please read it and understand it as you may be questioned on G4QZ465V EXCEL V WILKINSON. Also please write to UKPC asking if the £60 charge includes vat and if it does, does it include vat and why should you be paying their vat. And what are the damages you caused? There may be other arguments you can raise when you receive their WS though they are often sent late to make it difficult to add to your WS. Time is of the essence though for some of the items above. their is no speed limit, now will do.

Write to DCBL asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or are Excel demanding the charge. Also ask if the charge includes vat. If it does why are you expected to pay their vat? Explain that you will need to know these answers before you go to Court and they already know that you are not going to pay so you are looking forward to going to court. Give it a few days and write the same letter to Excel apart from reversing DCBL and Excel's names at the beginning. IE write to Excel asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or DCBL. Then continue with what was asked in the first paragraph.

Well you could say that you have pictures where the signs were not on the wall where you parked so would require strict proof of when they were erected . But in any case it was dark so even if a sign was there you didn't see as it was not illuminated. Little point in not having signs that can be seen at night though it obviously makes it easier to issue PCNs and pursue motorists claiming they have breached non contractual contracts whilst breaching those same motorist's GDPR.

The Google Street view I saw was done in 2018. So they could have added them before your event. You could put them to strict proof of when they were erected .Are you sure those signs were not there on the day you were parked. The contract is not valid as there is no proof that it was actually signed and by whom as the signatory's have been redacted and there is no proof from Robert Irving Burns ltd that Portland could sign on their behalf. [The contract is between RIB and not Portland estates] Some signs are prohibitory and cannot offer a contract. If the car park was closed any car there after hours was unauthorised.............

As Dave has already said they sent out their PCN too late That means that Met can no longer pursue the keeper as the charge cannot be transferred from the driver now to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable to pay so it is best not to appeal so Met cannot glean from the appeal who may have been driving.

I thought you had missed the defence part and now only the Witness Statement is due. That should give them a surprise when they see the keeper was not the driver, they do not know who was driving and their PCN does not comply with the Act. Oh dear I hope PE haven't started counting their chickens.

laura, I know you have a lot going on in your life so as a reminder if you look at post 16 on your thread that is way back on page 1 you posted up the response from the IAS Adjudicator where around about paragraph 10 I repeated what they said "based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." In other words your grandson put in the number plate of the lady he helped instead of your number after he sorted out the lady's own number. It is a very easy mistake to make. What is so unusual that the Adjudicator took the time to explain how it could have happened not only for your benefit but for information to Bank who should have taken notice and dropped proceedings. But that letter is a great asset for you and your son.

I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate . Even their own IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said " The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point. But I am sorry to say that you should not count on it.

Are Resident car parks subject to Planning permission under Town and Country Planning {control of Advertisements ] Regulations? SCHEDULE 1CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT TO WHICH PARTS 2 AND 3 DO NOT APPLY Class A "1. The advertisement is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land or from any place to which the public have a right of access." As a private residential site does the public have a right of access? This particular Act has so many caveats that even many Councils do not understand it and that includes me. Though I do understand it better than many council planning departments.

Shame you didn't keep the envelope...

I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is pay to park and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.

he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email is michael.murray@frasers.group

I'd go the whole hog. Complain to the ICO as it is a breach of GDPR sending info to an address where they know the person involved does not live there. And about the situation is about to become worse because a person known to the person involved is moving out. Tell BPA that the ICO are involved and that PE are breaching BPA Code of Conduct.

I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I had a TR5.

Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.

If there is a whitelist and few intruders there only seems the residents to make money from. It would leave wondering what the incentive was for the MAs if there was nothing in it for them except the obvious complaints from the residents. Not that I am saying that they are getting a backhander but there seems little other reasons unless they are trying to show how well run the place is managed-not. If they ran it properly there would be no need for OPs.