No please include the Schedule 4 bits since those are the ones that exonerate the keeper regardless of who owns what part of the road.

The parking rogues are very good at threatening motorists to get them to pay. And saying they are taking you to Court is one of them. But did they head that letter with "Letter before Claim" or Letter before Action" or something similar. If they haven't done that then it is just a threat. If they have done it, please post it up.

The Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 which governs private parking has been in force since 2012. So you would have thought that the parking rogues would have got their PCNs in order after eleven years of trial and error. Not a bit of it. Minster have taken your PCN to new lengths. Included in the Act is the request on the Notice to keeper that the keeper could pay the charge .Schedule 4 S9[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 charge So what does Minster do? "You should pay the outstanding amount if you were the driver". Totally at odds with the Act since the Act is looking for the keeper to pay the charge regardless who was driving. S That means that the PCN does not comply with the Act and so the keeper is not liable to pay the charge. only the driver is liable. {That is why we advise not to admit the driver's name since thousands of motorists who have valid motor insurance policies are able to drive your car.] Schedule 4 S9[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; They have failed to specify the period of parking on the PCN as required. They have put the arrival and departure times on the photos but that is not on the PCN. And as the times include driving from the entrance to the parking place, then driving from the parking place to the exit, it cannot be described as being parking. Schedule 4S7 [c] states " (c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice; So the maximum that they can charge is the amount on the signage. There is no mention in the Act for additional amounts to be added. If you were not the driver you can tell the Court that and they should cancel the PCN. Even if you were the driver Courts do not accept the parking rogues assertion that the driver and the keeper are the same person so they have to provide some sort of proof that you were the driver which would be very difficult if not impossible.

That should work but never underestimate the power of greed of parking companies .

You could go back and explain that the as PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2012 the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable for the debt. The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay the charge as it should under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable. Therefore it would be advisable to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court. As you now know the keeper is not liable to issue a court summons would be in breach of his GDPR.

I see we haven't asked to see the original PCN often referred to as the Notice to Keeper. could you please post it up as UKPC are not the greatest at getting their paperwork right and could be an extra argument why the ticker should not be paid. By the way they have overcharged by £70 as the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the sign. the additional amount is often described as being an abuse of process or double charging which Judges throw don't allow. Any chance of getting pictures of the entrance to the car park and the notices inside? Poor signage . is often enough to get cases thrown out.

It is a cinema car park Dave and as the cinema wasn't open there could be no customers. The charge is definitely a penalty since there was no legitimate interest involved since there was no need to keep the car park clear for patrons of the cinema. I am not saying that there may not be a charge for entering the car park at the wrong time but no way can £100 can be justified . You could also accept that you were trespassing and only the land owner can do that .

I agree that it is worth an appeal as the PCN is non compliant into the bargain. Under Schedule 4 S9 [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; There is no mention of the keeper paying to Charge. Therefore the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable. Under Schedule 4 S9[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; There is no mention of the period of parking on the PCN . The timing on the photos is not the same as including it on the PCN. Also the timing mentioned on the PCN is the time spent between the arrival and departure of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period. Another fail which reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.and there is no obligation to name the driver.

Don't bother reposting the PCN as I have now seen it. The keeper is not liable for the debt but the driver still is so it could be a help if you sorted out who was driving that day.

There seems a lot missing on your PCN that you showed on your first post. Could you please post the front and back of the PCN. There should be something about them pursuing either the the driver or the keeper at the very least. Who ever was driving the keeper is not liable for the charge-only the driver is as the PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

You will shortly have to complete a Witness Statement. On that you explain that as the PCN was sent out of time the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who the driver is so they should not even take her to court let alone have a chance of winning.

If taking them to Court is too much hassle you could always go a more gentler way that doesn't involve any financial outlay on your part. And that is to complain to the ICO about the breach of your GDPR. Before you complain advise VCS that you will be complaining to the ICO about their breach and suggest that they might wish to settle the situation before you make your complaint. Obviously when the ICO find your GDPR was breached it may well open the flood gates for other motorists to claim against you. See if they will quote you some sort of recompense and haggle from there.

They keep referring to there being a contractual parking charge. This is strange because the time you were there you were not allowed to park. As it is therefore a prohibitory sign no contract can be formed with you. So you did not breach their contract that they have with some other drivers. Admittedly you may be described as a trespasser but only the land owner can sue for that, not the lesser human beings at G24. On top of that under the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 they have not issued it in accordance of the Act. Under Schedule 4 S9[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;" There is no Period of Parking mentioned on the PCN. There are the times of entering and leaving the car park but they are on photographs not the PCN itself. In any event there is no way that a car being driven from the entrance to a parking spot then later driving from the parking spot to the exit could be described as being part of a parking period. Further, in Schedule 4 S9[f] states at the last part "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;" G24 totally missed out the words in brackets which is contrary to S9[2]. As a result you as the keeper are not liable for the debt. Only the driver is now liable and as just about everybody who has a valid motor policy is allowed to drive your car good luck with them convincing a Judge who was driving if you don't tell them. Courts do not accept the rogues premise that the keeper and the driver are the same person. Their needs to be more definite proof.

I note you said that you informed the rogues that your father was not driving his car that day and that the PCN was out of time. The PCN would have been addressed to your father so I hope that even if you wrote the letter your Father signed it. if it was you then UKPC were probably right in continuing to pursue him. Who signed the letter please/ Afraid you are wrong on the PCN being out of date. If it was posted on the 22nd it is deemed to have arrived two working days later which would have been well within the 14 days. That is not to say that the PCN was compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 because it wasn't. Under Schedule4 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; There is no period of parking mentioned just the arrival and departure times which is not the same thing as the parking period. Driving from the entrance to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit means that the car was not parked during those times. Another fail is where the PCN states that they can charge for recovery action in accordance with Schedule 4 . It is nothing of the sort. In fact Schedule 4 S9 [f] (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and 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; The amount mentioned under paragraph d is the amount stated on the signage. There is no mention in the Act of any additional charges being allowed and Courts throw out those extra spurious costs. They have also missed out the wording in brackets above which is a further breach of the Act. What this means is that your father cannot be held responsible for the debt only the driver can. So it would help if your father had signed the letter to UKPC since if he had, there was no reason for Trace to have been informed as that would be a breach of your Father's GDPR.

I take it that the car park was for something like Permit Holders only or Staff members only. as there appears that you were not supposed to park there. The Final Notice you posted is no use as it is the original notice that must comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which governs private parking. if you haven't kept the original PCN please send off an SAR so that we can see what they have and why they think they have a case. Quite often they don't. Already they have overcharged you by about £70 which is par for the course for them . Totally unlawful. Well done for not appealing. You have more chance of being made a Dame of the British Empire than getting the IAS to cancel your ticket.

I've had a look at their PCN and it is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 S9[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 period of parking mentioned on the PCN at all. What it does show is when you arrived and when you left. That is not the period of parking since you have to drive from the entrance to the parking spot and later, leaving the parking space and driving to the exit which cannot be described as parking. But by using the arrival and leaving times as the parking criteria it makes it look as if you stayed longer than you should because of the driving involved. Because It also ignores the five minute consideration period and the ten minute grace period the extra driving time inclusion makes the over age time look worse than it is. And around Christmas shopping times there is often much more traffic than usual which could have added to your time. And that does not take into consideration what the individual circumstances of each motorist actually involve. Were there any children with you possibly requiring them to have been strapped in chairs. Or perhaps there was a disabled person that required a wheel chair to be set up . All these delays would have been included in the parking period so would not have impinged on the time allowed in the car park. So you may have to think what happened on that day to further stretch out the actual parking period. The second reason for the non compliance is under Schedule 4 S9 [2][f] he 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; UKPC have not included he words within the brackets and they have not met the applicable conditions since they got the parking period wrong. There is one other matter on their PCN. They state that they can charge extra if the charge is not paid within a certain time. This is something not mentioned in PoFA at all. Indeed the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage so it may well be that the inclusion of an extra charge renders the PCN unlawful.. All this means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is responsible for the charge and every person with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. How can they know who was driving if the keeper does not tell them and the Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person.

The BPA do have a five minute grace period but weirdly [and possibly unlawfully] if you decide to stay then they take away the grace period. Even the IPC don't do that ! If you leave then they do grant you five minutes though not sure what happens if it takes two minutes to get out the car park and you were already four minutes in the car park. The BPA Code of Conduct for entrance signs is at 19.2 of their handbook. At best it should contain the T&Cs or at least have a standardised entrance sign. This one is even an entrance sign nor does it advise that motorists are entering private land and there is no BPA logo on it. Whatever else you can say about the BPA [and one could say a lot-mostly derogatory] the one thing you can't deny is there sense of humour as you can see at point 19.7 You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly.

Your post 5 said that the entrance sign was obscured by branches. I read recently of a case where the motorist had their PCN cancelled in Court precisely because the entrance sign was obscured. I don't know if PE will take you to Court but that is one more reason you can add to your list of why you shouldn't have to pay.

Well done. Though perhaps had they taken you to Court you could have had them pay your airfare from Zimbabwe and then see them lose the case in front of you. That would have been a real pleasure. However a win is a win however it is achieved.

Well done for not revealing who the driver was especially as the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. The driver is still liable but as hundreds of people have with the right insurance the ability to legally drive the car they will have their work cut out trying to find who was driving. The PCN is non compliant for two reasons. The most important one is that they have missed off crucial wording in a section where the Act requires that it is included. Under Schedule 4 S9[2][ of the Act 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; There is nothing on the PCN that states the keeper should pay the charge. Therefore the PCN is not compliant. The second thing wrong is on Schedule9 [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; What your PCN does is to state the arrival and departure times of the car. AS that included driving from the entrance to the parking place then later driving from the parking space to the exit cannot be described as a parking period.. Another fail. So just relax and tell the keeper that you are both in the clear and PE should not take you to Court [though they may well try] since they are bound to lose. Keep the above information to yourselves at the moment and keep it for the Witness Statement should it get that far. You can safely ignore all the debt collectors and legal letters you receive except where the solicitor heads the letter with something like Letter before Claim then let us know and we will point you to where you reply letting them know that you are not afraid of going to Court and you are certainly not paying them a penny.

The DVLA have to take a certain amount on trust when the rogues are asking for motorists data.That trust is sometimes misplaced but here the DVLA do not know the area of land covered by VCS and they would not be expected to look at every incoming enquiry to see if the road was covered by the RTA. The Judge decided the signage wasn't good enough so the RTA question did not arise.Another Judge might not have agreed that the signage was poor and found another reason to cancel the ticket. If you want to pursue VCS one way would be to see if VCS have lost there because of the poor signage. Another alternative is to write a letter to them pointing out the number of reasons why they hadn't a hope in hell of winning and say that you are minded to take them to Court. If you are sure that where you were parked was not covered by the landowners contract that would be a damning claim and would call into question their ability to get DVLA data as well as being possibly fraudulent. A third way would be to write to Southend airport board asking them to kindly confirm if the road you parked on was covered by their contract with VCS. You never know how they will reply. Perhaps they are unhappy with VCS and the amount of publicity they are getting and people writing to them to complain. They are quite difficult to get rid of once they have a contract so your query might be a catalyst. PS if you check Southend airport parking fines you will find many cases including your own and one or two of those may have won on the signage too though it would need to be fairly recent cases as they might have changed their signs since then.

You are never going to get the DVLA to admit they are wrong. With that being said your theory is incorrect since the land that the parking rogues monitor is controlled land rather than relevant land. Controlled land is private land that a contract has been established by the land owner and one of the parking rogues. Then parking charge notices can be issued legally where motorists have breached the terms on that land regardless of the land being relevant land or not . The difference is that with relevant land the keeper is never liable for the charge only the driver can be pursued. As the Law is that where a possible breach has occurred the DVLA are permitted to send the keepers details to the rogues even when the PCN was issued on relevant land. If the DVLA believe that there was reasonable cause for the ticket to be issued, then they have to send the keeper's details. Even with the new Government Private Parking Code S8.1.1 "If the notice of parking charge is not being issued under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it must not reference them." Usually therefore when the rogues are asking the keeper for the driver's name instead of saying that if it is not provided within a certain time then they have the right to pursue the keeper, they say that they have the right to pursue the keeper on the grounds that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Completely ignoring the fact that Courts do not accept the the driver and the keeper are the same person. But that has nothing to do with the DVLA as they were correct is sending out the keeper's details through the reasonable cause assessment.

Thanks dx they are all ok now.

No that is not a snotty reply letter but a CPR request template.

Buy in haste repent at leisure. I hear what you say but we had a friend in Singapore was paying for an apartment for us for a month so we were obviously keen to go for that reason. When we started looking the fares were increasing daily so we jumped in and bought the tickets without insurance from Trail finders since we were both over 80 [just]. We bought the tickets in October 2022 so we have to use them before that date in October 2023. My wife unfortunately was ill when the holiday was due so we changed the time to 30th August this year on flight SQ321 leaving around 10pm. Then returning SQ 318 on the 26th September leaving shortly after midday flying Business class both ways. [My wife was an asthma sufferer and disabled so not able to fly economy.] Now after five years of negotiating I finally received my Green Card to go to America. I have until the 17 th September to get there which clashes with the Singapore flight. I have spoken to TF and I asked if we could change the tickets again and leave from LA to Singapore return with the additional costs of changing the tickets and journey included. They weren't sure if that could be done but later they phoned and said that it would be possible and once I knew the available times they could alter the tickets again. I explained that the reason I was doing this was because I didn't want to lose something like 10 grand and was there anything I could do to avoid that happening. [I asked the the last bit before I came up with the flight change from the USA as I was told that they couldn't say a way round us losing the bulk of that money though it would be possible to get a small refund -taxes for instance]. Thank you for your help and suggestions . It does seem very unfair that while I accept that we have broken the contract that we made with them that they can keep virtually the whole amount and are still able to sell the seats to someone else if we don't go. Is one of the ways you are thinking of that we could sell our tickets to someone else at a lower price than Singapore airlines is selling them or is that out of the question?