Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice. The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent. Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.

S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1] the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works.

Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.

The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.

Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages. So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them. You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.

Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of the original PCN that they sent to the Hirer along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer. Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper. You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.

Though it would be Highview you would pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,

the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park. Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be. Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.

Really pleased that you won. UKPC know that you have supremacy of contract but still they persist because so many motorists blindly pay them. Muppets.

The Ceo is [email protected] In addition to frustration of parking you could also claim that had the driver not been ill they would not have stayed. therefore they were not parking as they intended to leave and was only detained by illness. it isn't as if they wer shopping, buying petrol or sightseeing-they wanted to go .

To enlarge on Dave's post 58 about the Penalty section. there was a famous court case at the supreme Court between parking Eye and Mr Beavis. The Law Lords mused that by charging £100 there was a definite possibility that it was a penalty. The Lords then decided that as PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park well run , it wasn't a penalty. Therefore it follows that as the business was closed at the time of your visit being charged 3100 is a definite penalty as there is no legitimate interest involved. if a PCN is classed as a penalty the case is thrown out. Your one line statement and missing out "legitimate interest"may end up with Judges missing the significance of the situation, Once you mention legitimate interest they will recall the Beavis case and the mention of the Law Lords of the word penalty you strengthen your argument. And it is great that a motorist is talking about the Beavis case rather than the rogues.

Yes you did breach the rules in a scam car park that so many other people have done. So it is not the motorists at fault, it is the way the car park is designed and sign posted-obviously very badly. The number of people you see on this Forum who have been caught out is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately so many motorists pay up . Hopefully that means that the greedy scrotes may decide not to go to Court in case their scam is revealed to the public and that may stop their profit generating system. The reason that these rogues can charge £100 for such a breach is because it was decided by a group of Judges on appeal , that though £100 charge could be considered a penalty, because the rogues had a legitimate interest in making sure that their car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying was deemed as not being a penalty. However when the shop or store is closed, there is no legitimate interest and so £100 is a penalty and the Courts will throw out any case that is a penalty. So relax.

I think it will make more sense if you read that the Judge meant the 28 day sentence was on the PCN not the sign. He lost because in the Judge's opinion the registered keeper has the option to declare who was driving on the day. Dave didn't do that so he takes the blame for not making the declaration. A totally wrong decision which can be challenged at a price. There is no guarantee that another Judge will want to say that the original judgement was majorly wrong so may not change it. On the other hand another Judge may say the decision was an absolute load of pollux and reverse the decision and add punitive additions on to TPS for bringing such a hopeless case to Court. That's why we call it Judge Lottery. To be fair, Judges tend to get it right more often than not. Doesn't make things any easier for Dave.

The PCN does not comply with the protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. because it is within the airport boundary and subject to Bye Laws. Therefore the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge so only the driver is now liable. As they do not know who was driving they are going to struggle. so do not help them by appealing. Also as Starbucks was closed by charging £100 that is a penalty since Met has no legitimate interest in pursuing the charge.. As it is a penalty the case would be thrown out should it get as far as Court. Met make a fortune from those who blindly pay so there is no need to risk Court.

The PCN is one of the more compliant that I have seen. however it still fails. There is no period of parking mentioned as required by paragraph 9[2][a] . ANPR cameras only capture the arrival an departure times. It does not record the times you drove from the entrance to the parking place and then from the parking spot to the exit. That means that if you are the keeper then you are not liable to pay the PCN. Only the driver is so do not appeal as you may reveal who was actually driving.if you were not the keeper then as long as the driver is not identified CE will have difficulty on that fact alone. The majority of people with valid motor insurance are allowed to drive your car and Courts do not accept tha that the driver and the keeper are the same person. On top of that your car was trespassing there since you didn't have a Permit and only the land owner can pursue you not the monkey they employ. The signage is prohibitory in that only permit holders can park there so no contract can be formed. The signage is new apparently so there must be some time allowance for motorists to adjust to the new signs which could mean that they shouldn't even be issuing you with a PCN. For all those reasons I wouldn't be too much in a hurry to pay them a penny. And well done on posting up the PCN and that sign so quickly.