G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson - The court office at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family - Studocu Please copy, read and understand the case from 20020 and include it in your WS. the Judge had decided that Excel had won the argument, their rules were breached. However by adding on the £60 the Judge threw out the whole case. you should add to your claim that as this double recovery has been going on so long that it is time for the Courts to continue to take drastic action and throw out the whole case. It is believed to be repayment of the debt collectors who work on a "No Win , No Fee " basis. As the case is being heard in court, obviously the debt collector did not win. In any event motorists do not have a contract with these debt collectors so there is no legal reason for this cost to be added.

Whenever you write or explain what happened in the car park, always say "the driver entered the car park" or the driver parked the car". Never say "I parked the car" etc. That way even if you were the driver you don't divulge the fact thus protecting your id so that the rogues do not know who was driving.

Good news about the old ones. If you need any help with the new one you only have to ask. And of course that goes for the old ones too. In fact it might help if you filled out the questionnaire- PS I liked your letter to the PPC [Smart?] re their lack of providing an SAR though it was a tad politer than I would have sent.

I read their contract and interestingly they say they observe their ATA Code of Conduct. They then say that they will apply for planning permission-which I am sure they haven't. Could be worth checking the local Council planning portal which would give you a stick to beat your MA with as to why OPS were brought in.

Is this a new case or one of your old ones going back to 2022? Either way you might be in line for a bit of compo from the rogues. How are the other PCNs going? Are they cancelled or still being negotiated?

Hi and welcome to the Forum. All airports are covered by Byelaws which means that the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable for the charge. If you haven't appealed and revealed who was driving you will win hands down. Even if you have admitted who was driving there are still several good chances that you won't have to pay a penny even if you end up in Court. To get a clearer picture which help you avoid payment could you please complete the following questions including the original PCN. Please redact your name. address and car vrm but do include the dates and times.

Because the PCN was posted after the 14 day margin the charge for the PCN cannot be transferred to the keeper so only the driver is now liable. So do not appeal as you may give away who was driving-perhaps inadvertently. As long as PE does not know who was driving they are stuck since anyone of thousands of motorists are able to drive your car and if it gets as far as Court Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. Is it possible to get photos of the car park as there appears to be a disparity in their claims. Have you kept the slip . If not did you look to see if the correct time and vrm were recorded correctly. Have you checked with the restaurant to see if they can help get your PCN cancelled. At the same time can they confirm what time you left there just in case PE have got the timings wrong on their ANPR cameras. [I used to get out of some London restaurants around 6 am in my young days though I am surprised that Ilford would be that late even on a Saturday.]

Thanks for letting us know your decision. It's never easy coming to a conclusion like this and you have taken time to take all matters into consideration. Time being an important one. I wish you luck and hopefully you won't park in a CEL car park for a while. I believe you have six years to make a case so you can change your mind.

Any sign of their WS yet Storyboard?

I recently posted a case on Iamgnome's thread that helps your residential case. i have also included this one for you just to show the other one was not a fluke. Parking Prankster: Link Parking and Overstone Court - getting your money back PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Link Parking entered into an agreement with Isis Cardiff Management Company Limited to control unauthorised parking at Overstone Court, Card... .

You are getting there though I would point out in your WS at 2.8 that you could add that neither of those companies are members of the BPA nor the IPC and are not able to apply to the DVLA for motorists data. Nor are they obliged to observe the rules of PoFA. Which is why their signs do not comply with the BPA code of Conduct. In 4.2 it is best to quote the actual clause from PoFA as not all Judges are au fait with PoFa. In this case the parking period is 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; However as you have outed yourself as the driver it is probably not worth mentioning any of it. your 4.4 point should follow or be included in point 4.1 to make sense. you should also ask for the whole case to be struck out because of the extra charge.

i have just come across an old case like yours which should give you lots of hope and a breach of GDPR at the end of it. Parking Prankster: Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon. Mr N had the temerity to park outside his own home, in his own parking space...

I meant Iechy da-the gremlins must have crept in when I wasn't looking.

Iecghy da . I went to Cowbridge Grammar back in the 60's and picked up a bit of Welsh when I was there-including the accent for a while. It's almost enough to restore your faith in the parking rogues isn't it. nah-nowhere near-they knew they were on to a hiding with that WS.

You could have countered back had they allowed that had they the knowledge to produce proper permits that could be affixed to the windscreen instead of A4 size pieces of paper, your permit would have been on the windscreen. Further, why does the permit have to be on the windscreen, surely if it is clearly visible on the dashboard for example then the fact that there is a current permit should be enough.

That was a surprise- but a very welcome one. Good news.

Yes it would be great and we will do everything we can to help you with your Witness statement so that they drop the case when they read it.

Not sure why they have brought out a new one since when the Private parking Code comes in IPC and BPA will become distant memories thank goodness.

Thank you for posting the sign. Interesting that they repeat the extra £60 that IPC think they can get away with when PoFA [and Beavis] are quite explicit -the first amount on the sign is all that can be charged. More and more PCNs are now also carrying the threat of extra charges when there is absolutely no mention of them throughout the Act. I think that we be complaining in each Witness Statement about such occurrences. I ask the Site team if including such a statement on a PCN renders that PCN unlawful or non compliant or both or neither? Just by chance when I was looking for something else, I came across this case G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson - The court office at the County Court at Bradford, Civil And Family - Studocu And I also found this that you might find interesting and may help to concentrate the minds of your MA. how+to+get+rid+of+managing+agents+on+an+estate+in+UK - Google Search WWW.GOOGLE.COM

Laura their Witness Statement will come if they decide to go to Court. Included with it will be a document from the Court advising you of the time and date of the case. Also included will be all the copies of the PCNs sent as well as letters from the unregulated debt collectors and their sixth rate solicitors. On top of that they include the contract they have with the landowners and a map of the car park etc. I doubt you will have received that as yet and I hope you never will.

You said in your appeal that "I have a parking permit which I displayed". That is virtually admitting that you were the driver which is why we don't recommend appealing. So don't try appealing any further tickets you are on a winner with all the other PCNs. And all is not lost with the appealed one. Just a different line of attack. Shame they aren't slapping tickets on windscreens you could have them for trespass then. As you are on the premises could you please post up legible photos of their signage including the one at the entrance and any that are different from others within the boundary of the building complex. They are usually the same but sometimes they get carried away and have a variety of signs which can count in yor favour. And as they have got their PCNs so badly wrong who knows how bad their signage could be.

You would hope that Parking Eye would do the correct move and withdraw their case. It is a waste of everybody's time . If they do decide to carry on go for every penny you can squeeze out of them Cardiff Devil. Train fare, parking, loss of wages, time spent on the case at £18 per hour , baby sitting costs etc etc. are a few examples. Don't be shy go for them.

It's good to see you back on here Laura. Dx will respond when he gets home. He is very efficient like that. In the meantime have you received the witness statement from Bank? And you have completed one yourself ? I know the thought of going to Court can be quite daunting but the one you are going to is nothing like the ones you see in films. The Judge does not wear a wig and the whole proceedings are pretty informal. Just go there with your son knowing that you will win and don't forget to tell your son that too. He has nothing to worry about. he won't have to pay a penny and you should get your car fare and parking fees paid and a days pay if you have taken the whole day off work.

You think they read appeals? Can amoebas even read?

Nothing like rubbing salt into the wound Lolerz. At least I couched mine with a bit of humour. But one could say that at least the driver was not outed? A partner or family member could have parked it.