Open.

LFI, the parking company here is PCM. That would be great. BTW, what is the object on the left-hand side of your bonnet in some of the photos? Is it just some reflection? Or could it be the parking ticket?

Around a month ago I had to send a sympathy card to a friend in GB. Logistically it made sense to buy a personalised one on eBay and get it sent straight to my mate, rather than faffing around getting it sent to me. This mighty purchase set me back all of £3.05 (including postage costs). I was taken aback that, when it was sent, I got a tracking number. For a flippin' three-quid card! I had no idea that technology had moved on so much and that tracking was so easy. The shop has feedback for 16,300 purchases so tracking must be easy & automatic. It's unlikely your case will get to court, but in cases that do this got me thinking that we need to aggressively challenge the PPCs where they have lied about the timescales of sending their rubbish and have no proof at all of posting - when it would be so easy to provide it.

Thanks for uploading the appeal. It was a waste of time but well done in not outing the driver. Why have your friends paid £60 they don't owe to a cowboy private company that have no means of making them pay as they don't do court? If they paid by card, as I presume they did, they should get on to their bank and do a chargeback immediately. We call the £70 the Unicorn Food Tax. The law specifically states they are only allowed to charge the original £100 but the PPCs and their bezzies in their trade associations allow this made-up extra £70 so £100 becomes £170. Unfortunately for them the law doesn't. Anyway, snotty letter time. There is an example in post 32 here you can tweak as it's the same company but a different car park https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/463964-alliance-anpr-pcn-lease-car-appeals-refused-daymer-bay-cornwall/page/2/#comments

I've been on this forum for eight years and I've never once seen a parking attendant refuse to leave a ticket through fear of an altercation with the driver. It's a very poor and obvious excuse to first not inform you you've got a ticket and second to lie about sending the £60 demand by post, so they can go for the whole £100.

Go for it!

We have 10 cases, including yours, for this company. There are no guarantees of course, but so far not once have they had the bottle to do court. They seem to be a small company operating only in Cornwall and out of their depth when it comes to court. BTW, thanks for filling in the sticky and uploading the PDF so quickly - we wish everyone who comes here would do that! As dx asked, please post what you wrote in your appeal.

The complete SAR changes things. They are claiming that the car park attendant, through trembling in fear of you, didn't affix a ticket, but then an invoice was sent by post on 13 March. Are you absolutely sure you never received this?

So what happened in this case?

They think they're being clever by making motorists pay £100 instead of £60 with their sordid little scam. The problem for them is that people like you, who quite rightly have decided to pay £0, easily have the upper hand legally and would hammer them if they were daft enough to do court. To the list of their disasters we can add mitigation. The only way their attendant could have been afraid that you might beat him up is if you were nearby. In that case the attendant should have mitigated the loss by telling you either to display your permit or move to another part of the car park.

HB - they don't ask why. Karalius - just note these dates on the form and you'll be safe, they will not fix the hearing date when you're away. How to fill in the DQ/N180 is on just about every claim form thread here, such as Andy's post 81 here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458783-parkingeye-anpr-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-new-directions-holdings-lambourne-crescent-llanishen-cardiff-cf14-5gl-claim-discontinued/page/4/#comments

I'm sure you could have done without a year's hassle from these crooks. However, think of it as a learning curve so you know what to do in the future should something similar happen again. Sadly the vast majority of motorists who get these invoices think they are fines and something terrible will happen if they don't pay so they give in. You didn't. Well done. Vile firms like UKPC start court claims, even though they have no intention of really going to a hearing, to try to intimidate those terrified of court into coughing up. Presumably it must work. The mugs who pay pay the £35 claim form fee plus £70 Unicorn Food Tax which finances two other claims. You didn't. Well done. A lot less well done in not replying to the Letter of Claim (which would probably have stopped the case there & then) or in outing yourself as the driver in your defence. If you ever get another invoice then please come here straight away.

Please clarify this. You got nothing before the demand for £100 on 12 April, right? The only "evidence" about the NTK which would have been £60 was the rubbish in the SAR about not wanting to confront you - right?

This is about the worst PCN I have ever seen. No attempt to include a period of parking. Denying you the right of appeal as you've accused "either/or" of two completely different offences so haven't a clue about what you're supposed to have done wrong. As the others say no mention of POFA and sent out too late for keeper liability. You might as well get onto the CEO of Tesco https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-9138&c=Tesco Plc-Group CEO laying it on thick about being a genuine customer and attaching proof of purchase, and ask that Tesco get the ticket cancelled. Some companies - Asda - are superb at doing this. Others - McDonald's - are useless. We don't know about Tesco but it would be useful to find out. Nothing ventured ...

Think of it logically. The very people who thought up this scam to send you a demand for £100 instead of the initial £60 discounted amount, are not going to accept an appeal against their own scamming! Ignore their coming silly demands for money. But never ignore a Letter of Claim.

This is great news. The PPCs have a tactic of placing a window ticket, photographing it, and then throwing it away, to do the motorist out of the chance to (a) appeal and (b) pay during the discount period. They are usually not so stupid to have admitted they never left a ticket. But PCM have!!! So you're in the clear. They've broken their own Code of Practice rules about the discount period and appealing. Plus their letter got to you too late to establish keeper liability. On top the only photo is of your car at 20:12:13 with no proof that you stayed longer than the 5-minute consideration period. PCM will continue with their deforestation in the hope you will give in but they would be ultra stupid to try court.

Well done on your victory!

Everything at small claims revolves around informality and common sense, there are no "special" ways to have to do things. The site manager's WS will be like yours and the one I linked to - just much shorter. There need to be the introductory headings about the case, the parties, etc., and the concluding Statement of Truth. In the middle just a couple of paragraphs where they say who they are, how they know you, and about permission being given by the landowner to use the car park. Superb. I've added another section about the signage to the suggested WS sections three posts above. Yes, it's perfectly possible. It'd be a good idea to phone the court on the 18th to see if they have paid.

You have five days yet to respect the WS deadline which is next Wednesday. As others have said, you can e-mail the court their copy. That gives you the whole weekend to get the WS prepared. Personally I'd post UKPC's theirs by 2nd class post (all they are worth) on Wednesday too, the court won't look badly on a short delay from a Litigant-in-Person. Another point. In your WS you say their signs are rubbish. That's a great point if their signs really are rubbish. It's a dreadful point if their signs are fine. So have you got photos of their signs?

You need to start drafting your WS. I would suggest as sections - Sequence of Events - a brief description of how you came to get the invoice. Permission from Landowner - self-explanatory. You will have to include this as it is in your defence. However, be aware that your argument is very weak and indeed harms your case. A person with no connection to the car park said you could park there - that is no different from saying that someone you met in the local pub said you could park there. Anyway, get the site manager's WS. Obviously this weak point could morph into a winner if you could get a WS from the landowner. Prohibition - you have this virtually word for word in the other WS. Insufficient Signage - anything you can find wrong with their signs. No locus standi - UKPC are not the landlord, they only administer the car park, they have no right to sue you (however the fact you never asked by CPR to see their contract with the landowner makes this a very weak point too). Double Recovery - again in the other WS.

Thank you. The fact it was a permit-holder car park, rather than a pay car park, does help your case. You can argue Prohibition at least. Have a look at the attachment in post 40 here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466177-ukpc-2x-windscreen-pncs-claimform-forgot-permit-appealed-res-parking-my-own-space-east-croft-house-86-northolt-road-south-harrow-ha2-0es-claim-dismissed/page/2/#comments You can use the introduction, Prohibition section, Double Recovery section and the concluding Statement of Truth as the basis for your own Witness Statement. Your case is virtually identical.

OK, good. So click on https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/ Scroll down to Q2) How should I defend? There you will find the template defence. Change (6) to (7) and add a new (6). 6. In a second abuse of process, the Claimant is claiming legal representative's costs even though they have no legal representative and in fact are representing themselves. When you want file the defence on MCOL. You can do it this evening if you want, but we generally say to do it a few days before the deadline (24 May) to ensure nothing goes wrong at the last minute but at the same time to show PE you're not scared of them and want them to sweat.

I hope I'm wrong but this seems to suggest you've been had. The site operator strikes a deal with the car park owner but then suddenly can't get hold of him/her. Really? In a whole year? In a world of smartphones/SMS/WhatsApp/e-mail? Anyway, please comment on the points LFI & I have made.

Just to check one thing before filing the defence. They have no legal representative - right? I'm referring to the two "boxes" on the top left-hand side of the claim form. Both show Parking Eye, right?