I'll just close this thread with an update. My appeal was successful and Parking Eye have cancelled the ticket. Worth appealing after all!

HB - I meant appeal the ticket with parkingeye. Though fruitless perhaps, as dx says. I'll get that photo of signage, and I'll try and track down the planning permission they have.

It would help me to make an appeal if I knew what they'd have to show and demonstrate at court. I'd feel more confident, and knowledgeable. Imp - don't feel you have to reply to my posts if you think I'm asking stupid questions! Honeybee - thanks for that, useful.

Thank you. If anyone knew the answer as to whether a court would look at evidence that I was busily buying Mochas during the time of the PCN, and so arguably Costa did not incur any loss, then I would be interested in the answer. I thought there had to be a loss incurred or reasonably expected to have incurred. But I may be wrong. Thanks again, folks.

Thank you this is very helpful - I'll get on to Costa. The Costa outlet is a standalone unit on a shopping estate, but the whole estate parking is shared with all units. Accoring to the PCN, I stayed for 4 hours and 15 mins in there whilst the limit is 3 hours. Had no idea about the planning permission stipulations, but I suspect that is longer than a grace period Thanks again for this input

Thanks I will try to get back there and take that photo. Very helpful to know that there may be this route. In the meantime, my original question was whether it is helpful to have proof that you were in the shop (in this instance, a coffee shop) still spending money during the period of overstay. I have that proof. My understanding was (happy to be corrected) was that a loss must have occurred, or reasonably expected to have occurred, for a court to say that the breach of contract should lead to them recuperating those losses. Has anyone, to your knowledge, successfully appealed on the grounds that they were in the shop the entire time (with proof to that effect) spending money! Or is that irrelevant. Thank you

Thank you, do you have any advice to help me with my question?

I attach the PCN (I hope) Parking Charge Notice-redacted-compressed.pdf

'fine' was my word. It's a "Parking Charge"

I have read the stickys and I see that a lot has changed since last time I did this. ParkingEye have recorded me overstaying in a shopping estate car park and have issued me with an £85 fine (reduced in paid quickly). I am wondering if anyone has had success by providing evidence that they were genuinely in the shop for the time period shown, busily purchasing away! Essentially I was in costa and can show from my bank statements that I bought a lot of coffees whilst I was there working (oblivious as I was to the time restriction). Is this worth appealing about? My thinking is that the shop did not suffer a loss as a result of my breaching their contract? Or is that naive thinking. Some help would be very welcome 1 Date of the infringement 12.1.19 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 17.1.18 3 Date received something like 22.1.19 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Y 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] not yet Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up 7 Who is the parking company? parkingeye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] westgate retail park, wakefield

I got a second letter (with "evidence") and their invoice isn't even due yet!!! Only been 10 days or so. They're keen!!! The "evidence" shows a grainy image... which might be a car... entering somewhere... and leaving somewhere... apparantly later the same day... *snigger*

My interest in all this is piqued (if that's the right spelling). Any link to this Trethowans case, or is it on an another thread? Very grateful. StJ

Thanks Bernie, et al. The main reason I want to send a (single, "icily polite") letter is that it will make me feel a little more comfortable about all this. If the price I pay is that I get a few more letters as a consequence, well, I can cope now that I know that I don't need to be intimidated. They can waste their stamps to their heart's content. Thanks again, StJ

Cheers Crem. I had wondered that, but Bernie has since then actually written an update on his sticky saying he has some reservations about the new advice of ignoring all letters. He concludes in his update that it is down to individuals to decide whether "you are prepared to run the risk". Albeit a small risk. I've no idea whether that is sensible or not, or maybe even the update is now out of date (!!!) but I guess that's why he hasn't taken the letters down? Thanks again. StJ

Aww, Wheeler. I am following almost all of your advice. I'm not going to pay, and thanks to your information I won't be intimidated by their threats of photographic evidence of the driver. Thank you, really. But I also know of other expert advice on this forum (see stickys from Bernie_the_Bolt) who suggests a simple single template letter to send. It seemed like a good idea to me and it worked very well for me last time, as I said. Others say it doesn't matter either way, they don't read them. But where's the harm. That's the only bit of your advice I wasn't going to follow. I think you are being over-sensitive. StJ