SeeNTheir PCN does not comply with the Proventon of Freedoms Act 2012. That means that only the driver is responsible for the charge. And not the keeper. Had you not appealed you would not have been liable. It is why we suggest you do not appeal. However is all is not lost and many people have fallen into the trap of appealing and thus making life a bit more difficult for themselves. The main reason that the PCN is not compliant is that they failed to give you the opportunity to pay the charge on behalf of the driver. Many of the parking rogues fail to comply with Act despite it having been in force for eleven years. Tells you all you need to know about their mental acuity. So many of the rogues fail to get the parking period wrong and Alliance are no exception. It seems beyond their pra brains to realise that quoting the arrival and departure times from their SNPR cameras does not reflect the actual parking period. Travelling from the arrival point to the parking spot and parking it perfectly within the lines can take several minutes. And then driving out the parking spot to beyond the exit camera can take some time if it is a busy period and other cars are also trying to leave at the same time. And this does not take into account disabled and elderly people nor those with small children. So you actual parking period could be five or more minutes less than their time. Coupled with queues at the pay kiosk could well mean that your actual parking time was within the two hour time frame. On top of that as you paid there is a five minute Consideration period at the start of the parking to allow time to read the Terms and see if you want to stay. And at the end of the parking period you have a ten minute grace period. So with all that going on the wazzacks are pushing it by pursuing you for money you do not owe.

Ok as you were not the driver on either occasion you are not responsible for the charge. Just ignore them and see my post on your other thread. You could question why the pub. didn't alert the motorist to signing the register. Once maybe but twice?

The PCN is not compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The main reason is that it should have included an option for the keeper to pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. Missing out that piece means they have not observed the requirements of the Act so they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. That is why we advise not to appeal since if the keeper is also the driver they may reveal in their appeal that they were the dricer. For instance instead of saying I did not see the signs saying permit holders only you should say the driver did not see the signs.... So now TPS are in this position. They should know unless they are total numpties that their PCN is non compliant. Therefore they cannot pursue you as the keeper. The Courts [if it gets that far] do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person so TPS have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are the same person. Difficult if you don't tell them. In any case because it is a permit holders car park, your car was not allowed to park there so as it was prohibited there cannot be a contract formed with the motorist and TPS. At best all they can pursue you fro is trespassing and only the land owner can do that So go about your daily routines and ignore all the rubbish they send you trying to get you to pay. Just keep an eye out for a Letter of Claim. or a Letter before Claim and come back and we will give you further advice on what to do. In the meantime you will probably be bombarded with letters from TPS, their pet debt collectors and their tame but thick solicitors. they can all be safely ignored except for the Claim letters. They don't pursue everyone and take them to Court but they do try and frighten motorists into believing that they will. As they lose money when taking people to Court they don't like losing money.

You are right Nicky-what was I thinking?

They have taken a liberty even issuing you with a ticket. You are only halfway into the area so obviously not parked plus I don't think there are any signs in the entrance to Lombard Place indicating that it is a private road. So you wouldn't know of the sign behind you. You cannot break a contract you knew nothing about and their fault for putting the signage so far down the road. Don't waste time appealing-total waste of time arguing with someone that has less brain power than 10,00 amoeba.

Could you please post up the full copy [front and back] of the Notice to Keeper. There is a third and fourth alternative to their rejection of your appeal. 3 Stick your PCN where the sun doesn't shine 4 see you in Court

The PCN is not compliant because it's on an airport and subject to Bye Laws. Thanks for posting Beverley Road. That is in post code DE74 2HN- their PCN says you were in DE74 2SA. You cannot be in two places at the same time. Under PoFA Schedule4 S9[2][a] the PCN must specify the vehicle and the relevant land on which the car was parked. They failed to do that. Case over.

A number of points about the PCN. Like Dave I am finding it a bit difficult to read in places so perhaps I missed it somewhere in the text but I have not read where UKPC claim to be the Creditor. It may be there and I just have not seen it. Black mark if they have missed it off since it would make the PCN non compliant. In addition, most of the rogue companies do not seem to be including the Period of Parking which is necessary if they want their PCN to be compliant. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires the period to be included on the PCN. They have got it on the photos but that is not on the PCN. Furthermore the parking period is not the time of entrance to the time of exit. Time has been spent from driving in the car park to their parking spot and then from the parking spot to the exit. On busy times it can take time to either find a parking spot plus trying to leave there may be a queue in front trying to get out which can all add to the time. Also an occupant may be disabled which can add to the time to exit. I notice that a section has been added to the PCN which is not included in the Act itself. Namely that late payment will mean increased costs. this flies in the face of PoFA where it is laid down that the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage.. It is nit picking a bit but getting the PCN reckoned to be non compliant means that you as keeper are not liable for the charge. And as you are not going to tell them who was driving they will have problems trying to win should they take the case to court. However if the Judge does not agree that it is non compliant an extra 30 minutes will be tricky to get out of.

Do you know what road you were on? Viscount road? the A453 and where did you stop. I cannot believe that one postcode covers the whole of the airp Wouldn't worry too much No Stopping signs mean that a contract cannot be formed between the rogues and motorists. Their signs look as if they are too small to read unless you do stop!

You're lucky, the PE PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They mostly do comply but there are a few that don't and yours doesn't. The reason is that they have not given you the option of paying the PCN yourself. Because they have not done that ,you as keeper are no longer liable for the charge. As they don't know who was driving they are pretty well stuck other than pursuing you on the dubious assumption that you were the driver. It would be helpful to your case if you could please post up photographs of their signage. They say they have entrance signs which would be good if we could see it as quite often the entrance sign does not offer a contract. You are right that as the place is shut there is no loss. What it also means that there is no legitimate interest involved for PE keeping the car park clear so trying to charge £100 is a penalty. If the car park is Permit holders only then no contract can be formed with you because the signs are prohibitory. There is also frustration of contract as you were unable to obtain a permit as well as you would be regarded as trespassing and only the owner can sue for trespass. There is also the fact that you were not parked there. You may have been driving around but that is not parking. Not sure about the 10 minute grace period as there was never a parking period to start with but you have enough to get out of paying a penny whether the 10 minutes are included or not.

The windscreen PCN does not comply with PoFA as there is no Parking Period mentioned- only the issue time is mentioned. On the NTK which came later once again the period of parking is not mentioned on the PCN as required by PoFA. There are parking times n the photos but that is not what PoFA requires. In order to enable the charge to be transferred from the driver to the keeper, UKPC must comply with the Act Schedule 4 S8 [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— (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; It is quite clear that the applicable conditions have not been met so the keeper cannot be held responsible. The area is for permit holders only so the signs are prohibitory for non permit holders so there can be no contract offered to non permit holders.

When you said you reversed into Lombard Place you did mean from Hewlett Road didn't you? And how far did you reverse down into Lombard Road? Or were your front wheels on what would the continuation of the kerb along Hewlett road?

The PCN you posted would not be worded the same as yours. they were late obtaining that driver's data so they could not apply the rules of the protection of freedoms Act 2012 to that PCN. your PCN was posted within the 14 day limit so you would be subject to PoFA 2012 other than they may not have complied with the Parking Period requirement. Uner the Act the PCN should include the period of parking on the notice. they have not done that although they have shown the times you entered and left the car park on their photos. but that is not he same as entering them on the PCN . In any case driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking spot to the exit could not be described as being parked so if your PCN was worded the same as that one you posted it would be compliant with PoFA and so you as the keeper would not be liable for the debt. If you cannot locate your PCN it would be best to sand ham an SAR to resolve that problem since if you are not liable for the charge that means you can relax a nd ignore all the rubbish they will send to you.

Excel do just what they say. They excel in getting things wrong. And they are ably helped by Elms ' The Tweedle Dee and TweedleDum[b] of the parking industry. n get wrong that will cause them to lose any claim against you. The principal one is getting your vrm wrong. You paid . End of. I doubt they will take you to court since they know it will get thrown out but they will try and put the frighteners on you in the meantime. It's just a question of standing up to them and not paying. One of the reasons we ask for the original PCN is that if they get it wrong [and they often do] the keeper is no longer responsible to ap the charge. if the car park is closeish to you, it would be a great help to see some legible photos of the entrance to the carpark and the payment machine signs as well as some of the signs in the car park itself-particularly ones that have different rules on them. Please do not get another ticket while you are doing that.

They tend to use less experienced briefs for Small claims so they probably get about £200 to £300 for the case. However even if you lose they will only get around £200 so UKPC will never make a profit. But it encourages other motorists to pay up rather than go to court. Knowing UKPC they will have cocked up somewhere along the line so your relative may get off scot free. Just a question of waiting for their paperwork which they would probably be safer to leave that task to the tea lady rather than DCBL .

Intrepid I wrote the above post a couple of hours ago and forgot to actually post it at the time so a few of the points I made you also mentioned.

UKPC have misidentified their parking area. They have said the car was parked in 1-21 The Martletts RH10 1 ER on both NTD and the NTK which is a pedestrianised street a couple of blocks away from the carpark in Parkside where the postcode is RH10 1EH. The NTD does not comply with PoFA since there is no parking period mentioned. In the NTK although the parking period is not mentioned on the Notice which it should, at least they mention it on their photos which is still insufficient. What it does mean is that as the NTD definitely does not comply with POFA they cannot transfer the charge to the keeper as they have not met all the applicable conditions . That is on top of placing the car in the wrong spot. I think they are dead in the water for those two fails at least. Never mind the lack of visible signage at the entrance: all their signs are situated on walls with small signs and not easily picked up by drivers parking in the middle of the car park: the signs are prohibitory in any case so no contract can be formed. When you turn into the car park the NCP sign is large and clearly visible. but in one picture the UKPC sign is facing into the car park so cannot be read by drivers arriving at the car park. In another picture form an earlier date, that sign on a pole is not there but there is a tiny sign fixed to the wall low down on the right hand side which would be very difficult to pick out especially as you have already been aware that it is apparently an NCP car park. The UKPC entrance signage is a complete joke.

I have just seen the latest paperwork with your NCP payment. You were parked in Parkside and when you look at the map, NCP has parking on the left side of Pakrside and UKPC cover the right hand side with permit only parking. And some of their signs say No Unauthorised parking. So if you did park on the UKPC side of the car park two things to question. The first is whether that car park is called 1-21 The Martletts or is it still Parkside? If Parkside you win because they have failed to identify the location and you were not parked in the Martletts. If that side is called the Martletts then they cannot form a contract with you since the signage is prohibitory. It also looks like a scam site as there is nothing clear to the right side of the entrance that it is covered by UKPC. From your pictures it does appear that you were parked on the UKPC side however the Martletts are nowhere near Parkside so have different post codes.

That is great news. Well done for standing up to them.

Don't forget to query why Harry appears to print his name rather than sign By printing it does that absolve him from any possible untruths that may have been in his WS? And if that is not his signature should the WS be accepted at all.

As DX said the letters from DR- are nothing to do with the University. Your letter is a good one apart from the the Cease and Desist part of it .If you add that they are unlawfully adding £70 to the charge you might get them to cancel the charge. Point out that you are sure that the University would not want themselves to be involved in anything unlawful and doubtless the extra charge was not included in the contract with CPM. Many Judges have condemned the charge and thrown the case out as being "an abuse of process". Include the letter from DR- pointing out the £170 charge that is not included on the University signage [I expect that sign says £100 or pretty close to that sum.] If you weren't the driver say that despite that fact CPM are still pursuing you even though you are not liable as the registered keeper . Their original PCN was not compliant with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so they will lose in Court as they cannot transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper.

That was a good letter you sent them. As my old gran pappy used to say "you catch more flies with molasses than you do with vinegar".

Well done and for your perseverance also. Plus it has saved you reading piles of guff and rubbish from debt collectors etc.

Wow -extending their discount period. You'd have to ask yourself if they were really sure they were going to win would they do that knowing what a venal money grabbing company they are.

Might be better not to include all the witnesses since it may become more obvious who the driver was.