You were given this PCN because you overstayed not because you went to Starbucks or MaccyDs from the other car park. I assume therefore that the parking time is only 30 minutes as you were recorded as being there for 38 minutes. Given that there is a Consideration time and a Grace period as well as the time between their photographs of your car arriving and leaving one wonders why they gave you a ticket. Force of habit I suppose. Because they are on airport land which is governed by Bye Laws that supercede PoFA we do not usually look at their PCNs there because in none of them can the charge be transferred from the driver to the keeper as would normally happen after 28 days if the charge is unpaid and the land is not subject to Byelaws. In your case as they have failed to specify the Parking period which is the time car is spent actually parked in a parking space not the bit that they include which is driving from the entrance to the parking space and the other bit from the parking space to the exit. As that reduces the lawful time you were actually parked I would suggest that they have breached your GDPR.

Met are out of order in this new version of their PCN. They show your car arriving and leaving via the ANPR cameras. They then go on to describe this as the parking period knowing full well that since your car still has to drive to a parking space and later drive from the parking space to the exit. How this can be described as a parking period with so much driving involved is beyond me.

I used to go to the Sainsbury's in the Cromwell Road London and my wife used to get PCNs there. I just spoke to a manage onsite and they were good enough to get them cancelled. If you take in the PCN , they photograph it and that is the end of it. Which is what should happen with major companies when their customers are ripped off by the rogues. Are you listening Mcdonalds and Starbucks?

well you could begin by laughing. the idiots at Europarks have had two attempts at sending you a compliant Notice to Hirer and have failed both times. For the second time they have quoted 28 days to respond but the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 14 [2][b]requires 21 days notice. They keep asking who was driving which is irrelevant, only the hirer is liable which is why the notice is to the hirer which seems way over their heads. They should have sent you a copy of the original PCN , your hire agreement and confirmation that you are responsible for motoring offences at the same time, which I assume they didn't do once again. You have more chance of being made a Dame of the British Empire than losing against these numbskulls. Just relax and ignore anything else they send you. I doubt they will send a letter of Claim but if they do let us know straight away so we can have a laugh and send them a snotty letter.

Amount of PCN £100 Amount claimed £125. Where did the extra £25 come from ? They can only claim what is on the signs in the car park.

Your case is not looking too good at this stage. Not helped by the car park not appearing on Google Street view. Interesting that UKPC seem to think that Walcot Yard is off Walcot Road when it is off Walcot Street. Part of Walcot Yard has the postcode BA1 5DW which is a building called North Range. You would have to find out where in Bath they would know the specific post code for the car park there since if it were the 5DW ending you may be able to claim that you weren't in BA1 5BG Walcot yard, Walcot Road, but BA1 5DW Walcot yard, Walcot Street. But probably the main help would come from the site manager. A written statement from him explaining the informal situation with the land owner or better still finding out who the land owner is and contacting them might help. though getting UKPC to cancel at this late stage will be next to impossible. I see they are trying to scam you out of £70 or is £60? 1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. Amount Claimed ~170 Either way in this case the Judge threw out the whole case-please read it and understand it as you may be questioned on G4QZ465V EXCEL V WILKINSON. Also please write to UKPC asking if the £60 charge includes vat and if it does, does it include vat and why should you be paying their vat. And what are the damages you caused? There may be other arguments you can raise when you receive their WS though they are often sent late to make it difficult to add to your WS. Time is of the essence though for some of the items above. their is no speed limit, now will do.

Write to DCBL asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or are Excel demanding the charge. Also ask if the charge includes vat. If it does why are you expected to pay their vat? Explain that you will need to know these answers before you go to Court and they already know that you are not going to pay so you are looking forward to going to court. Give it a few days and write the same letter to Excel apart from reversing DCBL and Excel's names at the beginning. IE write to Excel asking them if the £70 charge is made by them or DCBL. Then continue with what was asked in the first paragraph.

Well you could say that you have pictures where the signs were not on the wall where you parked so would require strict proof of when they were erected . But in any case it was dark so even if a sign was there you didn't see as it was not illuminated. Little point in not having signs that can be seen at night though it obviously makes it easier to issue PCNs and pursue motorists claiming they have breached non contractual contracts whilst breaching those same motorist's GDPR.

The Google Street view I saw was done in 2018. So they could have added them before your event. You could put them to strict proof of when they were erected .Are you sure those signs were not there on the day you were parked. The contract is not valid as there is no proof that it was actually signed and by whom as the signatory's have been redacted and there is no proof from Robert Irving Burns ltd that Portland could sign on their behalf. [The contract is between RIB and not Portland estates] Some signs are prohibitory and cannot offer a contract. If the car park was closed any car there after hours was unauthorised.............

As Dave has already said they sent out their PCN too late That means that Met can no longer pursue the keeper as the charge cannot be transferred from the driver now to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable to pay so it is best not to appeal so Met cannot glean from the appeal who may have been driving.

I thought you had missed the defence part and now only the Witness Statement is due. That should give them a surprise when they see the keeper was not the driver, they do not know who was driving and their PCN does not comply with the Act. Oh dear I hope PE haven't started counting their chickens.

laura, I know you have a lot going on in your life so as a reminder if you look at post 16 on your thread that is way back on page 1 you posted up the response from the IAS Adjudicator where around about paragraph 10 I repeated what they said "based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." In other words your grandson put in the number plate of the lady he helped instead of your number after he sorted out the lady's own number. It is a very easy mistake to make. What is so unusual that the Adjudicator took the time to explain how it could have happened not only for your benefit but for information to Bank who should have taken notice and dropped proceedings. But that letter is a great asset for you and your son.

I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate . Even their own IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said " The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point. But I am sorry to say that you should not count on it.

Are Resident car parks subject to Planning permission under Town and Country Planning {control of Advertisements ] Regulations? SCHEDULE 1CLASSES OF ADVERTISEMENT TO WHICH PARTS 2 AND 3 DO NOT APPLY Class A "1. The advertisement is not readily visible from outside the enclosed land or from any place to which the public have a right of access." As a private residential site does the public have a right of access? This particular Act has so many caveats that even many Councils do not understand it and that includes me. Though I do understand it better than many council planning departments.

Shame you didn't keep the envelope...