There is always the argument that as he was only picking up a child he wasn't parking...................

Could you please post up the two original PCNs you received -not the reminders. Please do not include your name and address nor the vrm number but do include the dates and times.

Harry is clutching at straws -obviously he can see this case slipping away. Nothing to worry about but if he is allowed the Supplementary WS then by all means kick his quibbles into the long grass. [That wasn't a euphemism!].

Joe 1965 it looks a strong possibility that you will end up in court so it is important that you understand what we say so you can win your case. Your snotty letter is an example of quoting from what has been said without appreciating its accuracy. You would have been shot down in flames had you sent that and the Judge would not have been impressed and therefore not taking other points that you make as serious or accurate . It's up to you whether you study your situation to give you the best chance of walking out of Court without costing you a penny and perhaps even getting them to pay your expenses for the day in Court. Or walk out having to pay them about £300 when you had a strong case against them. Winning against them is much better.

I take it that all you received from CEL was just the PCN and the wrong one at that. That means that you cannot lose in Court. They have failed to comply with the requirements necessary for them to be able to pursue you as the keeper, the driver or the hirer. Protection of Freedoms Schedule 4 Section 14 [1])...................................................... 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; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and So as they haven't sent you all the other documents and given you 28 days rather than 21 days, their case is dead in the water. They cannot claim against you because they have not kept to the conditions necessary for them to have a case against you.

When you received your PCN did you also receive a copy of the PCN sent to the NHS; a copy of the lease that you have with the NHS; a copy of the document where you accept responsibility for parking charges incurred while keeping the car and a letter from the NHS to CEL confirming you were the person leasing the car on the day of the alleged breach. The most likely is that they just sent you the PCN considering it should s such should only have given you 21 days to respond not 28 days.have been a Notice to Hirer as opposed to a Notice to keeper. The poor dears do not seem to have remembered that the car is on lease and a You have more chance of being made a member of the order of the Garter than losing this case if they have not sent the above documents along with the PCN.

Nicky Boy is right their PCN is a total mess. The PCN does not comply with the requirements of the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 mainly because they only have 14 days to inform you of your alleged breach of their contract . Very difficult when two Bank holidays and two weekends encroach on that time. Not only is it not compliant it may also be unlawful since it mentions that an unspecified debt collection charge will be included if payment is not made within 28 days. There is nothing in the Act that allows a debt collection charge . It does say that all that can be charged is the amount stated on the sign age and the PCN. Furthermore in the oft quoted Parking Eye V Beavis that all the rogues think is their life saver it says that £100 is enough to cover all their expenditure.. Plus it also says that the penalty charge was invoked but dismissed because of having a legitimate interest in this case. But other cases should be judged on their circumstances. By the sound of it in your appeal you inadvertently revealed who was driving. That was a pity since the non compliance with the Act means that it is not possible to transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. So as they would not know who was driving it makes it difficult for them to win in Court since Judges do not accept that the driver and keeper are the same person. In your case this time that is not such a great deal since you paid and a two minute over stay is small potatoes and has no chance of the rogues winning on that score. As they offered the £20 reduction it would seem that they have agreed that you did pay and they have worked out that your vrm does match with one on their list. So it seems hard to justify why they think they can then increase it to £100+. All you can do is now sit it out and ignore all their demand and threats until they either give up or take you to Court.It is unlikely that they will risk the wrath of a Judge for bringing such a poor case. However they will do their damndest to force you into paying their non existent demand. You will receive endless final letters from debt collectors and solicitors telling you they will take you to court without actually doing it. Just ignore all their rubbish hat they send unless it says it is a Letter before Claim. If you get one of those come back here and we will guide you on your next step.

I think you have to make the point clear that the tanker blocking your path would not have incurred if PE complied with the requirements of PoFA and only timed cars for the actual time parked in the parking spot rather than include the entrance and leaving times. They are obviously not the same as the Parking Period. Whilst the new Government Code of Practice only clarifies what the Parking Period in the original PoFA actually is, over time it has been corrupted by PE and others to include the extra time involved in driving around the car park thus enabling the rogues to rip off motorists when in reality the motorist had complied with PoFA. It is the rogues who are breaching the Act by falsely using the wrong yardstick for deciding the Parking Period. I note that they didn't answer your point about planning permission.They haven't got it therefore their signs are illegal. It follows on that the signs should not be there at all regardless of whatever their purported contract may say. What it also means is that their contract is void since they are using illegal signs to enforce their contract. If their contract is void then it cannot be enforced. The Act that requires planning permission for signs and anpr cameras is Town and Country [advertising] Regulations. It is criminal offence to display an advertisement without consent. So no consent then the contract is void.

Sorry one more thing. Harry is asking that even though he cannot be ar*ed to turn up and even if another advocate doesn't turn up, he still wants the legal fee to be paid ?????? I didn't know it was charity night at the Court.

Sorry for being so late with this-it's been a long day. Although you have to remove your OPS V Wilshaw since it was appealed and OPS won amazingly I have put in a bit to show that this Judge should be aware of the necessity of having a contract between OPS and the land owner, not OPS and the motorist. In the Wilshaw case they didn't produce a proper contract the first time which is why they have produced the land registry confirmation of who the landowner is. There are another 30 odd pages I believe you said some of which will be their signage. We may be able to critique those though you probably might be tight on time if you have to make more additions and alterations. I have just remembered that their PCN included a £70 extra " nominal charge". I believe that in itself may render the PCN non compliant if not actually unlawful since there is no mention of extra charges in the Act. Indeed the Act states quite clearly that the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage. And they did not stipulate a figure on the signage anyway.

I will throw in my thoughts-disjointed ma.y they be and in no particular order this time. First H. Green at the bottom of the statement was either written by a three year old or he printed his name. Which means that he hasn't signed that he was telling the truth. Put him to strict proof that it was his signature on the document. OPS still don't get PoFA if they thought OPS V Wilshaw was a correct interpretation of the Act. It was on Appeal and the Judge got it wrong. It IS necessary to prove OPS do have a valid contract with the landowners. Schedule 4 S2 [1] relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is [a]the owner or occupier of the land; or(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; Don't forget Jopson v Homeguard and the lack of signage at the entrance means it is only an offer to treat. I found a case going back 200 hundred years where silence does not mean that you accept the contract. www.lawteacher.net/cases/felthouse-v-bindley.php read the case and you will see it adds another string to your bow since that case indicates that staying in the car park does not mean that you have accepted the terms. And of course you were not parked since the car was still occupied with the engine running . if you were not the driver then you are not liable as the keeper since the PCN is not compliant . No parking period mentioned since the ANPR times include times when you were driving to and from the parking spot so you were actually stationary for less that the time they are claiming.. Also they missed out another part of the required section in PoFA Schedule S( [f][2] "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 piece in brackets is missing from their PCN. if the Judge accepts that the PCN is non compliant and you were not driving that is another reason to quash the ticket. Even if you were the driver they have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt since you were not liable as the keeper.

I am very sorry about that. It is a very short sighted policy of theirs. Slag them off on Trust Pilot.

No they haven't and BMX has to have his WS in tomorrow. So could he hold his one up for a day or two or just say on his WS to the Court that he hasn't received their WS.

If you are a regular visitor to Lidl and often pay by card you can show that you are a good customer that they should want to keep. That you were there to shop and therefore a good customer. you were not parked there to go shopping somewhere else. You like shopping there but as there are so many items of of interest one hour is not long enough especially if a] you are no longer as young as you were or b] disabled in some way that slow you down or c ] you were unwell when there or d] you weren't even there as you weren't the driver and give reason why the driver overstayed. Politicians have brought out a new Code of Conduct for what they call "the rogues" but you know one of them as Parking Eye who are more interested in making money out of Lidl customers than running a proper monitoring system to control non Lidl shoppers. PE have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which means they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to me the keeper. I was not the driver so am very unhappy at being pursued by PE for something I am not liable for. There is very little point in appealing to PE since they are reluctant to cancel PCNs . Suggest that you show the letter to your CEO since you would hope that he would see the common sense in cancelling the PCN for a genuine regular customer. Something along those lines. I am not fond of threatening them when hoping to get a positive result.

Thanks for your response. Have you spoken to Parkonomy to see what info and payment and car reg number they sent to Total ?

In addition to completing the questions asked in post 2 above it might help if you dig out your lease relating to your parking space and see if there was ever a mention of permits at the time. I have included this URL by the parking Prankster who explains various cases in the Courts. Two of which are mentioned in his post. You will have to scroll down a few cases but they should help to allay your fears and to give you many reasons to win any case they might bring. As well as a possible GDPR claim against them.. Parking Prankster: November 2016 PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Putting the fun back into parking<br> <a href="http://parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html">Click for guide to fighting ParkingEye court claims</a> <br> <a...

Sometimes the rogues don't take motorists to court at all-probably because they think they will probably lose. Unlikely to be the fact that they don't need the money. Another reason could be that the motorist has won and doesn't want to come back and tell us to avoid making a contribution. Other times they have missed the Court hearing and lost or just lost anyway- perhaps the Judge took a contrary view. These are just some of the reasons but it is frustrating when we don't know the outcome. It is good to get the feedback from the hearing win or lose. If a win then we know that a particular reason that didn't appear to us to be the strongest argument was the winner. Equally we can glean reasons how to improve cases that were lost so the next similar case can be more successful. We cannot win them all but that is what we aim to do. In your case you have three options. 1] pay them 2] appeal to Lidl 3' wait and see if the have the courage to take you to court. They don't always and there doesn't seem much point in poking them to take you to Court. Just keep your head down and hope they ignore you.

I am sorry BMX I cannot have you badmouthing dingbats. They are miles better than OPS.

That is good news and will be a great relief to you. As McDonalds tend to be owned by individual franchisees each one will probably have their own take on how to handle complaints against the rogues. Fortunately you picked one of the good ones.

I always like to add a PS when writing to the amoeba at DCBL. If you do not understand the contents of this letter I suggest you consult a real solicitor. Whatever they charge will be a lot less than taking me to Court.

You stayed there for a little over 2 hours. Did the driver not pay at all or did they not pay enough to cover their whole parking period in the eyes of Britannia?

Telling them who the driver was will not end the situation and their bill will be £100 Not telling them the driver's name will lead to the same length of time to come to a conclusion as not telling them but with a much better chance of not paying a penny. Reason being that the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore your father cannot be held liable for the charge . Only the driver can and as thousands of drivers are allowed to drive other people's cars they will have a hard job trying to get a win in Court should it ever get that far. The important thing is not to give them the name of the driver.

The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It should invite you to pay the PCN yourself as the keeper Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][e]. That means that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. It also means that even if you were the driver, the only person now liable to pay, PE will have their work cut out to prove that unless you tell them. Should it ever get to Court PE cannot claim that the keeper and driver are the same person. Reason being that thousands of people are legally allowed to drive anyone else's car albeit on a third party basis. So if you do nor contact them or their hapless solicitors and their hopeless debt collectors they will have a hard job proving who was driving.

I am not quite sure how it is possible to know that visitors to the town centre are abusing the parking though I am sure that many more will be genuine Lidl shoppers.. I have noticed that when I go shopping at a local Lidl they have a scanner system where you register your till receipt and enter ones car vrm I don't get a PCN even though I am over the time limit. Does help that I spend a fair bit of money there perhaps. If you spent a fair amount there or are a regular shopper there and pay by card Lidl should be able to check that so might be worth going back to their Customer disservice and stating that you are unhappy with Lidl since PE is one of the most litigious rogues and will rarely cancel tickets . On another note perhaps you could try writing again to Mr McDonell without including the receipt. Just telling him how much you spent and say you have kept the receipt as proof and you are a regular customer with Lidl but it hardly seems worth shopping there if you are constantly getting PCNs for £100. There are many other supermarkets that you can go to. But do it nicely and politely. You catch more flies with molasses than vinegar as the saying goes. I would try that before going to the review page . If it still doesn't work then really blast them in the review section.

The reason I asked if you had a letter from the depot confirming your use of the yard was once you had it, your case was so much stronger. I am so pleased they they finally saw sense and gave in. It must be a great relief not to be liable for such an amount of money. you have put a lot of effort into chasing down UKPC and so you deserved to win . Well done. On to the next one.........................