I am close to issuing a claim against Blackpool Council regarding thier unlawfully worded PCN's Has anyone any thoughts on the following, have I missed anything. The Defendant operates the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (“DPE”) scheme as per s66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 The process of involves issuing Penalty Charge Notices (“PCN(s)”) s66 of the Road Traffic Act sets out prescribed format which the PCN’s must conform to. One of the requirements is the PCN must contain the words “Date Of Issue” On 16/04/04 and 13/06/04 the Defendant issued to the Claimant PCN numbers BP12511958 and BP10016572 in relation to alleged parking contraventions with the Defendants area of operation. The Claimant paid to the Defendant £190 (2 x £95) believing the Defendant in its status of a local authority was acting lawfully in levying these charges. The Claimant now understands that the PCN’s in question were not worded in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991 s66 in that they did not contain the words “Date Of Issue”, additionally the PCN’s contain the words “Date Of Offence” however there are no criminal offences in relation to DPE. The term is contravention. It is the view of the Claimant that these incorrectly worded PCN’s are unlawful and unenforceable. The Claimant claims the return of the £190 paid in respect of these PCN’s

It comes under contract law. i.e. to enter the car park is to agree to contract to either display the correct permit or to pay the penalty charge. To get away with this the signage stating this must be clearly visable before you actually enter the car park.

What they are saying is rubbish, the OFT did not say that £12 is likely to be fair. Write back saying the accept the offer but will be pursuing for the rest. Then send the letter before action from the library claiming the difference. If they dont refund you then file your claim. You will get it all back

Does the PCN mention the Road Traffic Act 1991? It would be helpful if you could post a scan of the PCN, i'll try and help you

No didn't need to file claim, I was just about to when refund came.

Dre, This only applies to tickets issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement system, which uses the Road Traffic Act 1991, these tickets are usually issued by the council or thier agents I'm pretty sure private car parks are different.

If you are ever in any doubt if emails like this are genuine simply forward them to spoof@ebay.com You will get an automated response informing you if the email was genuine or not. It also helps in eBays efforts to get the sites distributing these closed down. The same applies to paypal ones but the address is spoof@paypal.com

Got a reply, loads of rubbish about thier complaints handling process, then this final paragraph: I'm waiting for the DPA request now to see how many of these penalties have been charged. Has anyone any comments about the above, my understanding of the OFT announcement was it could be applied to products accross the banking and finance industry. Would it extend to HP agreements? Additionally the OFT annoucement is just a bonus, I think the original argument of punutive penalties for breach of contract holds true in this example. Thoughts?

I agree, there is nothing to worry about here. I would do nothing until a claim form arrives, if it does which is unlikely then post the particulars on here. If it doesn't and they continue to harrass you, inform the police.

I think I read in the OFT report that they will not tolerate attempts like this to mask the penalties by calling them another name. It depends if they will do anything about it though,

It may be possible to go back further than 6 years, search for posts by BankFodder on the subject

First Direct Wakefield Road Leeds LS4 1FD It will find its way to the correct department, rest assured.

I just phoned the bailiffs office again, couldn't believe what they said. Apparantly its on thier desk and they are ready to attend the premises, however they are just waiting for another couple of claims to come in for the same area, as it saves on petrol I couldn't beleive it, Prestons not that big.

Sent today: Keep you updated

Halifax are unlikely to defend £50, they are unlikely to defend £5,000

I missed a payment on my car HP agreement last week. Got this rather charming letter: Doesn't say how much the "administration fee" is, on the back they have a schedule of charges and it just says, Unpaid Items - Variable Can they add any fees onto the direct debit, thought i'd signed for a fixed payment each month?

I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYONE TRY THIS, PURELY A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION We know that the banks want to avoid a hearing at all costs, therefore they are settling the claims left right and centre. Some easier than others but all settling eventually. What would happen if someone, accidently lets say put more charges on thier schedule than they had actually incurred. The bank could submit a defence saying, charges 6 and 7 never occured, but then they would be admitting the rest. Or they could say we dispute the claim in its entireity. But untimately if they didn't settle the full claim it would end up in a hearing. They would lose the basic argument and would only succeed potentially in getting the erroneous charges knocked off the claim. The reason I ask this question is that one of my claims had 2 charges which had been refunded previously over the phone. It was a genuine mistake as I was only highlighting codes DR on the statement, I didn't think to check for and knock off any refunds. The point is the claim was settled in full, so either they didn't check, or more likely they did and ignored it. Thoughts?

Thanks, I am on with this matter at the moment. Basically I have a non-compliance issue with my DPA request, They have responded with a silly form to fill in, and they have credited the £10 fee to my card account (which has been closed for two years so I now have a credit balance of £10) I'm planning an action to force compliance so I can get the information, i.e. telephone conversations etc. As an aside they have paid the £160 I was claiming for late payment charges.

Statements in, £565 in total. Preliminary letter sent today, 14 days

Got a cheque this morning from Sylvia McAllister, the letter was even really signed by her and it wasn't without prejudice which makes a change. I'll post full letter later however one interesting bit says that from now on, in light on the OFT recommendations the default charge will be £8. It says this charge represents the administrative expenses of dealing with defaulters and is calculated using the OFT's points.

Blackpool are in big, big trouble trust me. It could even become a police matter Like he said, watch this space!

They are punutive penalities, follow the process and put them on notice. I'm sure you will get you're money back.

Just a quick update on this, phoned the bailiffs office again on Friday, they said they have written to the debtor giving 14 days to pay direct to the court office at Preston. Failing that the bailiff will attend to remove goods. This one is starting to drag on a bit, why are they messing like this for the sake of £110

I didnt include any list of charges with my claims and they were all paid. I think if it gets to allocation stage both sides have to submit copies of whatever documents they intend to rely on both to each other and the court. You'll need your list at this stage, assuming it goes that far, none of mine did.

What does the High Court have to do with a county court small claim for £170. I don't understand.