You probably weren't to know but once they have sent you a PCN they pursue you relentlessly until you pay up, get sent a letter of Claim or give up entirely. The latter is around 5 years time. It's a shame you didn't keep the original ticket as that is the important one and if there are things wrong with it they have no chance of winning in Court unless you don't turn up. As you will need that PCN you should send them an SAR [you'll find it in our library]. It takes about a month for the reply so the sooner you send it off the better.

The fact that they have not observed the 14 day rule does not mean that they cannot pursue you as the driver since they always assume that the keeper and the driver are the same person. This despite the fact that anyone with valid motor insurance can drive your car and the fact that the Courts do not accept that that the keeper is the. driver . They need to provide some other sort of proof that you were the driver. We do not know if PE will take you to Court. They lose money when they do even when they win usually unless multiple tickets are involved. They rarely have instances where motorists come back within the time limits. Yours is the first I have seen. For that reason they may not want to go to court and test the theory behind stopping cars from returning within a stipulated time since losing might mess it up for all the rogue companies as well as themselves, infrequent though that may be. And if they win, they still lose financially as legal advisers in court on their side will charge around £250 to represent them. It has also been mooted that by appealing they are aware of you and depending upon how good your appeal is, or more importantly isnt, may decide them whether to go to Court or not. generally they will still continue to push you using unregistered debt collectors and often scummy legal companies in the hope that you will crack and pay up without the necessity of going to court.

Different land owners want different things in their contracts and the rogues obviously want whats best for them so there will be differences in the contracts. The 11 minute rule is a win for OPS since that is established at the car park that 11 minutes is the maximum. In most contracts as well as the new government Code 10 minutes is the minimum with no maximum. Indeed one lady won her case with 30 minutes included in the grace period. Ooops I have just realised that this contract was written before the new Government Code of Practice was in force so a win for Periworld. The Judge will not be swayed by another OPS contract having clauses in them that strengthen your case as the only relevant details are the contract with OPS and this contract. However the Jopson case is a great help for you. In normal times you could have expected to have been in and out within the 5 minutes and your only reason for going there was to bring some bikes back. You were not there to go shopping. You already have point 6 [Confusing signs ] in the correct place further down under No Keeper liability. so you should eliminate it from the illegal signage section. Incidentally the Period of Parking comes under Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][a] not section 4 so needs amending. When you do receive their WS you can compare the signage with the old contracts to see if they are using the ones that were in force when you were there.

That is a great WS. One slight cavil is in your Locus Standi where you state that you have not been provided with the contract despite you quoting from that contract. A CPR does not oblige them to send contract details but without them in their WS they have no hope of winning. I see you have a contract that Sameal was sent. Did they really send that or did yo find it elsewhere?

Yes the sar is important as we need to see what they are pursuing you for. They are not very good with their paperwork nor their signs but you do need to get the ball rolling with reasons to beat them and the sar is a good start. Also please check with the DVLA as they will have two addresses for you. One as the driver and the other with your vehicle. They may be different so worthwhile seeing if the addresses differ. At the same time ask the DVLA when they sent ESP your address and what address did they give.

Thanks for the heads up FTM.

You would have thought that if they now know you are applying for a set aside that they would call off their bailiffs to avoid having to pay their charges when you win your case.

You will probably get several further letters from DR minus each one probably saying Final Notice. A switched off hoover has more power than DR so never acknowledge them in any way. Nor worry about them as they can do absolutely nothing to you.

Well at least you know what their arguments are against you. As over 14 million letters go missing each year in Britain so yours could quite easily be one of the missing ones. Put them to strict proof that the letter was sent and point out that it was in the interest of UKPC not to have it delivered. That way they would be unopposed in Court which would be an advantage in view of the number of PCNs included as well as the unlawful addition of extra charges.

The CEO of East Midlands airport is Steve Griffiths but I cannot find and email addy for him. That airport is part of the Manchester airport group, the Managing Director of which is Ian Costigan. ian.costigan@manairport.co.uk

Another reason why PCNs are cancelled is because the signs are poor. Either because they are insufficient in number to be seen or the font sizes are too small to inform motorists of the critical terms of the car park.

The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which governs the parking of cars in private car parks. As it did not arrive within the regulated 14 day period Parking Eye cannot transfer the charge from the keeper to the drive r -only the driver is liable. As many people are legally able to drive your car and the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. So they will have their work cut out to prove who was driving. It is important therefore not to let them know who was driving. For example never claim that "I parked the car......" instead say "The driver parked the car..." When you returned you stayed for longer than the first time so you didn't return to buy something that you had forgotten . . So was there a reason for the return within the banned time which could be claimed as a mitigating reason.

As they only use ANPR cameras in this car park they have n o idea what occurs inside the car park. Are most of the bays full: is it difficult to get out of the car park when you leave because the main road is very busy; did your son drive in and your wife drive out-they haven't a clue.

Rather than answer your questions I have included a WS from OPS involving another Cagger.. The WS is on post 87 and includes much of what you will receive from them when their WS arrives with you. There is only one contract which should cover all the bases required by the land owner and the car park operator. If things like no mention of permission to prosecute motorists that would probably be something the land owner didn't want included since to CP operator surely would. Yes the ANPR lack of permission would go well in the Locus Standi section. And yes again re the BPA wrongful stance on the Consideration period. It is stated on the new Private Parking Code of practice 5 Duration of Parking Period -"hence the need for a consideration period before the contract between the driver and the parking operator is made and the parking period occurs". And even the IPC agrees with that for God's sake.

The PCN doesn't comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so you as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.Only the driver is now liable. As so many people are able to drive your car they will have their work cut out unless you contact them and what you say indicates you were the driver. For instance saying "I tried several times to make payment..." instead of "the driver tried several times....." Also if their equipment is faulty it is unfair that you should be punished which would be the opinion of the Court. Is your reg a personal one or were you using the number of another car instead? Some car parks do pick up your reg number at the entrance and so would reject your attempt to pay for a number that the camera had not picked up.

Parking on private land is governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the rogues who operate in private parking want to be able to transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper when an alleged breach of the Act has occurred, they need to comply with the Act. When they don't [and it happens quite frequently] they cannot pursue the keeper for the debt-only the driver is now liable. Doesn't stop the rogues since they assume that the driver and the keeper are the same person and carry on chasing the keeper.The good news is that should it go to Court, Judges do not accept that the driver and keeper are the same person. Anyone who has a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. You are allowed a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of your parking . You also have a five minute minimum Consideration period at the start of your parking to allow you time to look at the signs and to decide whether you want to park there after reading the terms of the car park. Both the IPC and the new Government regulations, which have been temporarily suspended, say that the consideration period should not be included in the parking period. The BPA on the other hand disagree and insist that once you have remained in the car park after the five minutes, that time should be included in the parking period. I guess they take the view that they should not observe the Law when they have a chance of making money. If the DVLA had any cojones you would have thought that they would at least have queried the discrepancy between the BPA and the other two parties. Probably don't even know about it despite claiming the robustness of their systems. Yeah right. So you need to find an extra 5 minutes or a Judge who believes that the BPA Code of practice does not comply with the regulations.I don't think the latter is out of the question.

As Bazooka Boo said the PCN is not compliant which means that only the driver is liable for the charge since non compliance means that the rogues cannot transfer the charge to the keeper. Important therefore not to reveal who was driving. Something like "I parked the car ...." instead of "the driver parked the car..." is a dead giveaway as to who was driving. They can't even bother to say that they are the creditor. And as Nicky Boy rightly said they have not identified the car park . In the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 S( [2][a] it states 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;" Well it certainly has not specified the relevant land where the car was parked. Nor have they got the period of parking right either. It cannot be right that driving through the entrance to a parking spot and then later leaving the parking place and driving to the exit could be considered as parking . Another thing. Is the allowed time for parking there 30 minutes or one hour? If it is one hour then they should have given you ten minutes grace period.

Reason why people do not appeal when first given a They know PCM and the IPC are a bunch of scammers using a kangaroo court and do not cancel tickets as you have their Trust Pilot reviews- Parkingcontrolmanagement is rated "Bad" with 1.3 / 5 on Trustpilot UK.TRUSTPILOT.COM Do you agree with Parkingcontrolmanagement's TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 66 customers have already said. So don't get in a panic as many people know how bad they are [including Judges]. And although you messed up with the time they too have messed up especially with the PCN as I listed on post 18. So you as the keeper are not liable to pay the debt. The Courts do not allow them to assume that the keeper and driver are the same person so they have to prove that you were the driver on the day. I hope that if you have had any correspondence with the rogues that you did not reveal who was driving. On top of that you knew that you had arrived at the car park at 7pm which is why you left within the 24 hour period as you left around 6 pm the following day.

I think you'll find that police,traffic wardens and the fleecers can park in such areas that we lesser human beings cannot but I am sure it would have ruffled her feathers.

The PCN is not compliant with the protection of freedoms Act 2012. 1] the parking period should have a starting time and a finishing time. It is not "the period immediately preceding the incident time." As that could be anywhere from 10 seconds to several minutes and there is a five minute consideration period so no breach of the conditions have been proved to have been broken. 2] Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e][1] they are supposed to ask the keeper to pay the charge and here they haven't altogether. 3] they have missed out the words in parentheses in Sch 4 S9 [2] [f][2] altogether. This means that they cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver can be liable and anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. So they will have their work cut out trying to prove who was driving. On top of that the signs that you have shown are prohibitory and as they are stopping you from doing something it is not possible to form a contract with motorists on that basis. In addition as you were noticed by a patrol instead of ANPR cameras they should have placed the ticket on your windscreen not sent it by post as Nicky Boy has already said. When they do a windscreen ticket it is addressed to the driver who then has 28 days to pay the ticket. Should the driver not pay, after 28 days they have to send the keeper a PCN which allows another 28 days before they can take any legal action. Doing it their way with you they have cut the time down by 28 days plus they expect the keeper will be more liable to pay than the driver. PS Could you please complete the questions asked on page 2 to further help your case.

I have seen the sign in the past where the 11 minutes was mentioned on one of the signs. it is also mentioned in their contract. They may well include it when they send their WS but you should mention it when talking about their confusing times plus it brings your over time stay more of a de minimus when mitigating circumstances are taken into account since the Grace Period and Consideration periods are not written in stone but are regarded as minimums. No I am not confusing cases-I have seen their contract in the past plus I didn't explain it properly. They will send their WS to you around the time you are both required to send them to each other. With any luck they will send theirs before you send yours=partly because you will hold it up till the last moment so you can see their arguments. Included in their contract is that the car park is monitored by their employees-no mention of ANPR cameras ergo they do not have permission of the land owners Periworld to use cameras at Vantage Point. I have looked at your revised WS and it still retains the 11 minute grace period as being blatantly untrue when you will see it is included in the contract and on some of their signs or at least they were. And as it is in your interest for it to be at least 11 minutes please remove it. I was wrong about the 11 minutes being the consideration period so the maximum you can claim is 16 minutes but bear n mind that under the BPA Code of Practice they do not include that in their calculations should you remain in the car park. This is completely at odds with the IPC Code and the governments new Code. Heaven knows why the DVLA missed that. [Ok I do know . The DVLA are an incompetent bunch]. I would also remove the piece about the contract not being produced. That should be done via their WS and I am sure it will be included then since if it is not, the case should be thrown out pretty quickly.

Reading your WS again I now do think you should remove the 11 minute sentence and include it in section four where you can add "and yet another sign says the time allowed is 11 minutes". In section 5 you end by saying the defendant is not liable for the charge which is incorrect. The Keeper is not liable for the charge but if you were the driver you would still be liable . So please alter defendant to keeper. This ties in with page 7 where you have coloured in yellow which you should be reconstructed to something like "As the charge cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper because the PCN is not complaint and OPS have not proved who was driving as evidenced by their Particulars of Claim that they are pursuing both the keeper and the driver you respectfully.......

Have they still not sent a contract? If they have can you please post it up.

I have not seen the amended particulars from the scammers. But it is great that Judges are not standing for the tat that is often sent to them as the particulars of their claim. It makes it easier to do a better WS when required.

Once they have the warrant they can come to your house. What you must not do is to let them in . Once they get in and they may try and use force which they are not supposed to do but they will deny they have used force if they do get in. Once they are in they are then legally able to search your house and take such goods that they think will raise sufficient money to pay off the CCJ and their fees. Ideally you want to be able to get the bailiff stopped from getting the warrant. Because you are going to get a set aside. The whole point of the set aside is for you to be able to put your side of the story to the Court. Hopefully you will get the set aside and then have the charges against you cancelled. So you don't owe any money to UKPC , DCBL or the Court. And so the bailiffs never get involved. But it does mean that you must get the set aside regardless of the cost. A set aside will cost less than £300 while you are looking at well over £2000 once the bailiffs get involved. Have you checked yet to see if your situation means that you won't need to pay for the set aside.? Since that letter that they sent you at post 195 are you absolutely certain that you received no further correspondence from UKPC or their legal team? Please treat this as serious. Bailiffs can take what ever possessions they can to collect the amount ordered by the Court. Even if they cannot gain access to your property they will take your car and garage it somewhere charging you for its storage as well as things like freezing your bank account and trying to take possession of any business equipment you may have. Whilst some of this may be illegal it will take some time for them to release it back to you and it will not result in the amount of the CCJ being reduced. You are now up against the State and no amount of belligerence on your part will cut any ice with them. A Court order has been issued and it will be the job of bailiffs to collect it and they will have the full backing of the Law to do so I am not saying that to frighten you but to explain the position you are in. The set aside is vital as is stopping the bailiffs from obtaining the warrant. To answer your questions about bailiffs. They can enter your property if the door is unlocked. They can impound your car and the goods inside. They can legally ignore any notices you put up about ceasing and desisting as they have the power of the Courts behind them.