That is great news. Was this before they got your WS?

C.B. the principal reason why you should win is that the PCN is not compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for the reasons I said on post 5. Thus you as the keeper are not liable at all. UKPCM have blown it totally. get that across to them in your WS and they may not want to go to court . Schedule4 Section 4 states- Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of 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; In Section 5 they fail also -Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; UKPCM did not have the right to enforce against the driver because according to the contract in Schedule 2 drivers loading or unloading are not to be ticketed. In section 6 it 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. The PCN was not given in accordance with paragraph 9 since the warning that the keeper becomes liable if the charge has not been paid is totally missed off (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— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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; And of course they have not mentioned the period of parking . So with all that it is clear that as the registered keeper you are not liable for the charge. OOPs I see you have just posted your WS. Sorry mine was a bit late.

Thank you for posting the original PCN-I am sorry to be so long in responding. The ticket does not comply with PoFA since the period of parking is not mentioned. Under Schedule 4 Section 9 (2)(a) it should be specified. What they have done is entered your arrival and departure times only . As that includes the time taken to drive to a parking spot and later drive from the parking place to the exit no way that it can be called a parking period They have also missed out the part in brackets in Schedule 4 S9 (2)(f) which states that they have to have complied with the Act if they wish to pursue the keeper. As they haven't done that the keeper is not responsible for the debt -only the driver is In addition you did shop at the supermarket so were entitled to park there . If you paid by card you would be able to prove that should something similar happen in future contact the store straight away as they often get the tickets cancelled

It does seem strange that none of those letters except the last legal ones were delivered to your office. You probably know hat under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that provided you supplied UKPCM with the details of the lessee at the time, you would not have been held liable for the charges even if the van driver didn't pay. However it is difficult to reply when you didn't receive any correspondence from UKPC. But you are where you are and have to defend yourself against something that should have been the responsibility of the van driver, had the PCNs been delivered to you. So thank you for posting all their WS so we can build your defence. The first thing are the PCNs-neither of them are compliant with the Act. Under Schedule 4 Section 9 [2] (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; No period of parking is mentioned. There is an incident time which is just one time. For there to be a parking period there is a requirement for a starting and finishing time. There is neither on the PCNs. There are times on the photographs but there is not a parking period mentioned on either PCN which there should be. Also the times on the photos show the arrival and departure times of the van but as they include driving from the arrival area to where the van stopped then driven from that spot to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. The second reason the PCNs are not compliant is by virtue of 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; If you read both PCNs you will see that nowhere do they ask the keeper to pay the charge. That means that as they have failed to comply with the Act the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the debt and you do not have to tell them who was driving. Another reason to dispute paying is that the van was not parked as it was a delivery van unloading medical supplies and had the UKPCM guy stayed longer than three minutes they would have seen the unloading occurring. if all that was photographed was of three minutes duration, that is well within the five minute grace period that drivers are allowed to read the T&Cs and leave if they don't want to be bound by them. Interesting too that not a single photo has been shown of the parking signs near the van-perhaps they are not so easily read at night . I would certainly make the point that the signage visibility is still in doubt and give the driver the benefit of that doubt. If it was clearly visible, UKPC would have shown it. If you look at the agreement with the landowner-under Schedule 2 the last line states the vehicles loading or unloading are exempt from the parking rules. If you include all those arguments they should be more than enough for you to win in court should they be so stupid as to take you there. Lastly I haven't read it but I understand that delivery vehicles should be treated rather better by traffic wardens than ordinary motorists according to the following- https://logistics.org.uk/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=869378c6-05b5-432f-bb87-3d4adb9ab2a5&lang=en-GB PS Were there postal strikes or some other reason why your mail wasn't getting through.

The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012..Had it been compliant after 28 days without the charge being paid the keeper becomes liable for the charge. As it is not compliant only the driver is liable to pay the charge which is why we recommend not to appeal since it is so easy for the keeper to say "When I parked the car" for example. That alerts the parking company to the fact that the keeper and the driver are the same person. When you bear in mind that anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive anyone's car it makes it very difficult to convince the Court that the keeper and the driver are the same person when no appeal has been made. Of course in your parents case if the keeper was not the driver they are in the clear and do not have to worry.

Very strange PCN. It looks as if it was sent out to you on time but there is nothing to say that if the driver does not pay within 28 days that the keeper then becomes liable for the charge. This would seem to suggest that perhaps Spinningfields is subject to Byelaws so the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply. But over the page of the PCN it says that the transfer of liability [from the driver to the keeper ]will occur by 25.11.2022 if the charge is still unpaid.. So the upshot is that the PCN fails to comply with the Act therefore the keeper is not liable for the charge-only the driver is now liable.

Lee if UKPC don't get all the necessary conditions right, they are unable to pursue the keeper. At the start of Section ( the Act says they must comply with the Act. They didn't do it with specifying the parking period. And as they missed off the wording in brackets when they should have, once again they didn't comply with the Act. Only if they comply can they pursue the keeper. By failing to explain t hat the have to comply they failed to comply. If the keeper was not the driver they owe nothing. If the keeper was the driver then as long as UKPC do not know, they have a hard job proving it in Court. The Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can legally drive his car ,UKPC will have difficulties winning the case. They will be pursuing the keeper as they do not know who was driving and the keeper is not liable.......

I suppose one can make allowances for the Leasing company. But not premier Park.They have got nothing right after sending the Leasing co. the PCN'. What they should have sent you is a new PCN giving you 21 days to pay -not the 28 days there usually is. The morons have sent you the 28 day PCN. The protection of Freedoms Act has been in force since 2012 so one would have thought they should have their paperwork in order given that eleven years have elapsed. Because they sent the wrong PCN you have not been offered the discount either which you would have with the Notice to hirer. Any way the wrong PCN and the lack of copies of the documents from the Lease company mean that you as the hirer are not liable to pay them a single penny. Happy days. You could tell the Lease company that once they have complied with the first PCN which was to send your documents to Premier Park means they cannot be pursued further for the charge. Then tell them to read Section 13 and 14 of PoFA 2012 so that they understand why they are not liable to pay the speculative invoices. And help their hirers by telling them that if they do not receive the correct paperwork they are not liable to pay the charge either. [I explained it in my earlier post]

Your PCN is not available at the moment can I just ask if the PCN was all you received from them. What you should have received is a copy of the PCN they sent to the hire company; a new PCN possibly headed Notice to hirer; a copy of the hire agreement you have with hire co. plus the declaration which you signed confirming that you are responsible for traffic infringements. if you didn't get all those documents you are not liable for the charge as explained by The protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 14 [2][a] the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that—(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; And 13.2 states (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

Thanks for pointing out where the PCN was Nicky. There are a number of things wrong with the PCN. The Protection of Freedoms 2012 Schedule 4 governs the running of the private parking industry. if the PCN does not comply with the Act, the keeper cannot be held liable for the debt. Only the driver is liable and as anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can drive your car and Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. So UKPC may have a hard job winning if they do not know who was driving. Section9[2][a] 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; There is no mention of the period of parking. All the PCN shows is the arrival and departure times which is not the parking period since there is a certain amount of driving involved in getting from the entrance to the parking spot and then later from the parking spot to the exit. Section9 [2][f] includes the wording in brackets 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;. As they have missed the words in brackets off that is another fail and they have failed to meet the applicable conditions by not stating the parking period the keeper s no longer liable for the charge. Additionally they have included a statement that if you haven't paid within 42 days they will use a debt collector which will incur further charges. There is nothing in the Act that allows that. The most they can charge is the amount on their signage..So the PCN has a further mistake on it.

What you uploaded of the PCN was not complete and may help to avoid your Mother from being liable. Is it possible to show the whole PCN.

Sadly getting a private PCN for the first time requires a steep learning curve if you need to get the PCN cancelled By your own admission you sat on your hands whereas had you appealed to NELFT early on they might have been able to get the PCN squashed or even quashed. Leaving it until after a Claim form has been issued makes it a mountain to climb for PALS as PE will have incurred costs in getting to that position.. All is not lost though. PE will have to send the contract between the hospital and themselves which could a help for you. Also when you posted up their original PCN it did not show the part about transferring the debt from the driver to the keeper. PE usually get this right but when they don't the keeper is then not liable for the charge. So could you please post up the front and back of the original PCN. I personally am surprised that the hospital would have agreed to only a thirty minute parking time which is far too tight for even healthy people to get in, see a doctor and get out again. Good business for PE of course. There is one thing I noticed on the PCN that could help. One of the stipulations on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that the parking period is specified on the PCN. PE have not done that. They have entered the time of arrival and departure using their cameras. As cars have to drive from the entrance to a parking spot and then later drive from that parking spot to the exit, that cannot be described as a parking period. Schedule 4 Section9 [2][a] of the Act 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; In Court "Must" is important and they have not quoted a parking period at all.

In that case you are not liable for the charge. They failed to comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012. They now have more chance of becoming the royal family of Norway than winning this case in Court.

Thanks for posting your PCN and you have the perfect out. You are hiring your car. This makes a difference for the parking rogues and so few of them get it right and I would think that your one comes under that category.. . Under Schedule 4 S13 [2] the keeper complies with the Act by 2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—(a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Once the keeper has sent those to the rogues, only the hirer is ten responsible for the charge. BUT if the rogues have no sent you copies of the documents sent to them by the keeper in addition to the PCN they cannot pursue you. SChedule4 S14 [2] he creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; If they haven't sent you those documents in addition to the PCN then the Hirer has no liability to pay the charge. So the question is-did they include those documents sent by the keeper to you? If they didn't you are off scot free.

You weren't parked there. You are a cab driver so went there to pick up a passenger. That is not parking. You may have been waiting as the passenger was late but you were not parked,. If you look at the Homeguard v Jopson court case you will see that just as the Judge decided that Jopson wasn't parked neither were you. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for two reasons at least. The main one being they took too long to send you the PCN. That means that only the driver is now responsible for the charge but the keeper is not responsible at all. As you have already outed yourself as the driver that is one argument you cannot win. However the other fail by First Parking is that they have failed to mention the parking period. What they have done is to use the arrival and departure times of your car as the parking period. You could not possibly be parked whilst driving from the entrance to the passengers door . Nor could you be classified as parking when you left the site. As those two driving periods could easily have taken up at least three minutes that means you would have been stationary for a maximum of 15 minutes. As you are allowed a 5 minute Consideration period and a 10 minute grace period at the end of your time even if a Judge decided that you had been parked [which I think unlikely they will think that] you then have the counter argument that you left within the stipulated legal time so you did not breach their alleged contractual times. I am surprised that a company as big as Addison Lee does not have a service to help their drivers in circumstances like yours.

If you have thrown out your PCN by mistake please send them an SAR so that we can see whether it is compliant.

That is an amazing reduction. None of them usually offer below £200. Now that is an insult! £70 may be that they realise they may not win in Court so hoping a reduced amount will induce to pay up rather than going to court.

Have changed the date of the flight coming back from Singapore. This will cost an extra £3000 plus travel insurance will add another £1200. We are flying out on the 30th August and am seriously thinking of not going and asking for a refund. Obviously I cannot expect to get a full refund since we didn't take out travel insurance at the time -mainly because we were too old to qualify for it with them I know that by cancelling we have broken our contract but it does appear to me that to retain the full cost of the flights seems an unfair penalty. Is there any mileage in going to Court since they are adamant that the most they would refund would be the taxes which is a fraction of the amount we have laid out.

It is very commendable that you pay off your debts quickly. However when PCNs are issued they are classed as speculative invoices and are not recognised as debts until a Judge has so decreed. Apcoa tend not to take motorists who have had one of their PCNs so they back it up by using unregulated debt collectors to frighten people into paying .There is no need to feel guilty at avoiding paying since many times the parking companies themselves fail to observe the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which regulates the private car parking industry. If they can't observe the regulations why should motorists pay their PCNs. We would have recommended that you appeal initially to Pals to see if they could cancel your PCN as you are staff.. Often the reason that the debt collectors operate on a No Win No Fee but they charge £60 or £70 if they win. [Hence why you paid that extra amount.]. However if you hadn't paid them and later you ended up in Court, the parking companies still try and charge that extra £60 even though the debt collector was unsuccessful. That is the kind of companies motorists have to deal with. It is obviously your right to pay it . We feel that the parking companies are parasites who over charge motorists and often rip them off so we do everything we can to avoid paying them. There are many ways in which these companies are not abiding by the Law -one of which is the the way their PCNs are issued. If they do not comply with the Act then the keeper cannot be held responsible for the charge-only the driver is liable. Still these companies pursue the keeper [without telling the keeper that they are not liable for the charge. They are operating on the premise that the driver and the keeper are the same person-something that the Courts do not accept. Of course getting the PCN wrong is only reason why the keeper may not be liable. Sometimes it is the signage that is non compliant with the Act or perhaps the motorist may have stayed a bit longer than the stipulated time but they are still within the secret extra time allowed when the motorist wasn't liable. Also there are times when the contract between the land owner and the parking company requires even longer time to commence pursuit and other times the contract does not allow them to take motorists to Court. But still these companies threaten taking people to Court hoping they will pay up even though they cannot be taken to Court. There are other reasons too why your PCN may mean that you do not have to pay it. But to pay it without knowing if you were liable to pay it does not appear the wisest course. At least try and check as far as you can before parting with your hard earned cash. It seems that you have paid quite a few times in the past, possibly because they car park is full and you had to park somewhere other than a recognised parking spot. Or you had to work over time and ran over the stated parking time. Can I suggest that we have a look at the original PCN that you received -often called a Notice to Keeper [a reminder is no use for that only the original has the necessary wording that complies with the Act. If your was a windscreen ticket could you please post that up as well. Incidentally even if you were the driver, as long as you do not let them know that they cannot assume you were the driver since anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. To give you an idea, one of our site team went through a host of members who had asked us to help defend them and found that over 85% of them had their PCNs cancelled so they all walked away without paying a penny. It is up to you of course but if you feel that would like to find out a bit more please complete the questions below-

Is there any update on MCol? 24 hours advance notice is not good enough and cannot be right.

I don't think you need to send them kisses Dave.

The elephant in the room which they did not mention was the keeper was not the driver and the PCN is non compliant. I would write back to them stating that this letter is not an appeal. The University of Leeds has been informed that the keeper could not be the driver and the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Ergo the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. While that point was ignored on the appeal, should they decide to take the matter further and instruct the Court for instance, that will be taken as a breach of keeper GDPR and as that can involve compensation which could be as much as £2000 where certain types of disability are concerned, is it worth the risk?

I am in agreement with Dave on this. They didn't have to reduce to £20 if they didn't know that the keeper wasn't the driver.

Nicky Boy if the car was parked on a public road and PoFA didn't apply, then PoFA should not have been quoted on their PCN.

I think you should write back to DCBL complaining that theirs was the worst attempt at mediation you have ever seen. All they have done is remove the unlawful £70 claim that will be thrown out of Court should the case get that far. The maximum they can claim is the amount on the signage so they are still double the cost The Judge in the Supreme Court case of Parking Eye v Beavis said that even at £100 the penalty clause was invoked and that only their legitimate interest saved them. He carried on to say that anything much over £100 and it would be considered a penalty since the charge was already high enough to cover any further contingencies. Put it to them that this attempt at "mediation" was no more than a sham to parade before a Judge that you had attempted to avoid Court by offering a reduced price. In reality what you are demanding is a penalty and Judges should be made aware of your puerile attempt at pulling the wool over their eyes. And include the letter with your WS.