Sorry part of it got a bit garbled. Should have read Private Parking Code of Practice Section 14 .1 (g). And of course quite often their PCNs do not comply with PoFA meaning that the keeper is not responsible for the debt.

Could you please post the back of the PCN which will show if it complies with the Act.

The contract was started with BPA but now CPM are with IPC who have different Ts &Cs . The contract does not appear to give permission to CPM to take motorists to Court By redacting the signatories to the contract we do not know whether they were signed by directors of the respective companies nor their names nor whether they were signed at all. The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms act 2012. Schedule 4 Section 9[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; The creditor did not ask the keeper to pay the charge so the keeper is not liable for the charge. The Claim is addressed to the keeper so the PCN should be cancelled. The Entrance sign has too many conditions on it to be able to read it while driving past the sign. There is no proof that the signs inside the car park coincide with the entrance signs so the PCN should be cancelled. The £70 extra charge is not allowed because the amount is not specified in the signage and under PoFA the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. It would have helped had you posted it up two days ago to give us a better chance of helping you. However we all wish you well today.

The signage being contradictory is good news for you. You are allowed to choose which option suits you better.

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can now be pursued and as hundreds of drivers are able to drive your car they will have a difficult job trying to prove who was driving. Especially as Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

The PCN does not comply with he Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So the keeper is not liable to pay the charge only the driver can now be pursued. As you haven't appealed they do not know who was driving as anyone who has a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car.

You have a claim of" frustration of contract "to assist you. It isn't your fault that their machines are not working nor that a company that operates a 7 day business is not available on two of the busiest days to assist motorists. Don't think you need a scanner [nor a scammer !] to answer the questions. Your mobile phone can take pictures of your PCN.

I think if you are going to use lack of pp then you will probably be better enlarging on the subject. You can do this by quoting from the Town and country planning [advertisements] ltd 2012 and the section relevant to private car parks. Pointing out that it is a criminal offence not to have pp so it follows that there can be no contract formed from an illegal instruction. You can then back it up with the new Private Pag) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs Of course the rogues will say that the Private Parking Act isn't in force at the moment. While that is true, they are only pointing out the Town and Country Act which has been in force since 2012 ergo the Courts should be observing it now. In the case just lost though it might be better to ensure that there should be pp necessary at that particular site.

Not all car parks require planning permission.It depends on the size of the car park, if it is an enclosed car park and if planning permission was given to a previous parking company in the past. There may be another reason or two as I haven't checked it out lately since most Judges tend not to look upon it as a reason to cancel a PCN.. Of course the parking rogues have also flummoxed Judges by their lies -sometimes about retrospective permission [which is totally fallacious] but has worked on some Judges.

You have already received the Notice to keeper and it fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which means they cannot transfer the charge from the keeper to the driver. Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. You could check with the Council to confirm that the road comes under the Road Traffic Act or is private land. Either way it seems to me that they have breached your GDPR since you should have a five minute consideration period.

This is the current rule from the BPA Code of Practice relating to Grace periods. 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. "a period of at least 10 minutes ....." So they have broken the Code which means they have breached your GDPR. they are also in breach of the DVLA regs in that they must adhere to the BPA Code of Practice.

The signage at the entrance, by stating that the T&Cs are inside the car park, cannot form a contract with motorists. It is only an offer to treat.

The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012-the Act which governs the private parking rogues . They have failed on two items. 1 under Schedule4 of PoFA Section 9[2][f] they are supposed to advise the keeper to pay the charge if they are not going to out the driver.. They didn't do that. 2 Under S9[2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking period. Driving the car from the entrance to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit cannot obviously be termed as being parked. That means that the keeper is not responsible for the charge only the driver is liable. Providing you did not say who was driving then you are in the clear.

That was a very good result. Remember if ever you get another PCN to contact the land owner straight away to get the PCN cancelled. And never admitting that you were the driver in case they pass it over to the rogues.

There is no need to panic. UKPC rarely get all the necessary requirements correct in relation to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which governs private the private parking companies. This means they cannot transfer the liability for the charge from the driver to the keeper should the charge not be paid within 28 days. Had you not appealed and perhaps revealed who was driving we might have been able to set your fears straight after seeing your PCN. By appealing you may have made things more difficult for yourself but not fatally so. Please post up the PCN and what you said in your appeal.and we can advise from there.

ghedgehog in their Contract they say that they will abide by PoFA 2012 and then they don't. Under PoFA Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] it states (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; Nowhere on their PCN does it even mention Period of Parking. It does mention the arrival and departure times but as that involves driving to get to a parking spot and than later driving from where they were parked to the exit it is impossible to consider those times as the "parking" period. Had you not outed yourself as the driver that would have given you a clear win since as the PCN is not compliant with the Act the keeper is not responsible for the charge. However the pay machine is out of use. The Just app and phone number rarely work as there is no mobile phone signal nor internet connection that appears to work. http://llangrannogwelfare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MS-Report-Llangrannog-Beach-PDF.pdf As such this is an entrapment site and the scam has been going on for months if not longer. OPS make more money by not fixing the problem and the motorists are unable to pay even though they want to and have the means to pay. As they cannot there is a frustration of contract and the claim by OPS should fail. As far back as June 2nd I also said then that the PCN did not comply with PoFA because of them attempting to overcharge on the PCN. So twice they have not complied with PoFA yet they are taking you to court because they have failed to provide the necessary financial facilities to make payments.

There are a number of things wrong with the PCN that make it non compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012-the Act that governs the private parking rogues. When they get it right the keeper becomes liable for the debt after 28 days if the driver hasn't paid. As Alliance haven't got your PCN compliant it means that you as keeper cannot be pursued for the debt-only the driver is now liable. The danger with appealing is that if you were the driver you admit in error often that you were the driver by saying something like "when I parked the car...." rather than "when the driver parked the car..." Courts do not allow the rogues to insist that the driver and the keeper are the same person they need more positive evidence to satisfy a Judge. A poorly worded appeal would be enough. If the driver is not revealed then it becomes very difficult to prove who was driving since anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. So what is wrong with your PCN? First they have not mentioned the parking period which the Act demands that they specify. Schedule 4 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; Obviously driving from the entrance to a parking spot and later leaving the parking place and driving to the exit cannot be described as parking. On top of that you are allowed 5 minutes consideration period to look at the T&Cs to decide whether you want to observe the Rules and stay or leave. At the end of the parking time you have a further ten minutes grace period to get out of the car park. As that is 15 minutes it would not be hard to imagine that the further 2 minutes could have been taken up by driving around the car park as well as paying the ticket, loading the car especially if there were children or disabled people involved as well as traffic blocking the exit. Then in Schedule 4 Section 9 [2] [e] it 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; Your PCN misses out virtually all of that which once again is a massive fail for them as far as being able to hold the keeper responsible. They continue to mess up by stating that you are liable for a further £70 pound when the Act is quite clear that only the amount on the signage can be claimed. The signage often can be enough to get the PCN cancelled so worthwhile checking out the signs. The important sign is the one at the entrance. After that the one by the payment machine is also important and if there are signs that state different terms on them can all help your case. Please ensure that the photos are legible. The fact that the car park was half empty is not an argument that you can use . It would be helpful to see if Alliance would know who was driving from your appeal though we can always take the position that no offence occurred because of the 15 minute free periods.

Welcome back EB. How are you keeping and is this just a fleeting visit or can we look forward to more frequent visits from you?

One would assume that the most likely reason for not receiving the original PCN and a few follow up letters would be that your address at the DVLA is different from the address you are living at. So check with the DVLA and see what address they gave to Countrywide. The DVLA have two addresses for you and when you update your address when you move, the DVLA very unhelpfully do not update both addresses at the same time.

They cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper as their PCN does not comply with the Act. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is quite clear that if the PCN does not comply with the Act then only the driver is liable to pay the charge. As any motorist with a valid motor insurance policy can drive your car Alliance will have a hard job identifying the driver unless you appeal and reveal who was driving. Should this case end up in court, Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.. The main reasons why the PCN is not compliant is that they have not asked the keeper to pay the charge and nor have they explained that they can only transfer liability to the keeper if they get their PCN to follow the PoFA guide lines. They haven't. They are supposed to specify the parking period but instead give the exit and arrival times so they have included the time taken to reach a parking place and later leave it to drive to the exit. Without those driving times your car would have become much closer to the four hour parking time and there is always a fifteen minute allowance to take into account. Another error they made was to add an extra amount if the charge is not paid within 28 days as the Act is quite clear-you can only pursue the driver for the amount on the signage. So dinnae fash yersel.

Did you tell them it was a courtesy car? So the driver would have been a hirer of that car. I expect you were too late to inform them of the situation. However I may be wrong but when a PCN is wrongly addressed I thought a new PCN had to be raised and the discount offered. had that happened the rogues knew it would have been too late to issue a new PCN from an out of time perspective. If the address has been wrongly addressed then you argue that the PCN was incorrectly served and the follow ups were out of time.

As this is an important legal document which is designed to avoid you paying any money to UKPCM you do need to proof read to make sure that it is clear. When you copy from other people's WS's you do need to think how it fits into your case. For example you mentioned VCS in part of your statement but your parking company is UKCPM which would be confusing to the Judge.I appreciate this is all new to you and difficult to get your head round but if you don't , you may well lose in court when there is no reason to as you have a strong case. I also understand too that Dave and I gave you different advice on how to lay out your WS which has been confusing.so its down to you to understand what we are both pointing out then putting it all together into a cohesive argument to convince the Judge that UKPCM haven't got a chance of winning. It is important that you understand what you are saying so that you will not be bamboozled should their solicitor try and trip you up.. You do have perfect reasons why you should win concentrate on those.

I am so pleased to hear your result.No doubt you are too, frustrating though the last few weeks have been. DCBL seem to make a habit of discontinuing days before cases are due to come to Court.

I am sorry Jenny-I forgot to post it.

Hi Jenny could you please complete this questionnaire and get the ball rolling in building up a strong defence for you.