Hamz909 I am sorry not to have replied already. The last couple of days have been hectic so I have only completed about half of the explanation . I hope that it will be finished later today though it may not be till Monday as I am baby sitting one of my grand daughter's this morning and watching another grand daughter in a play in the early evening. And I may have to add something else after looking at the situation again.

Even if that was not a PCN on your car, can you still swear that a PCN was not placed on your car ? NO Even if they showed you a copy of the PCN they sent, can you still wear that they actually sent the first PCN to you? NO Why are still quibbling when the real argument is why they have broken the Act by telling you that you hadn't paid when in reality they shouldn't have sent that letter out probably until Monday which would have been deemed received on Wednesday? If you are that bothered about it, just leave out the start about the windscreen ticket since it isn't why you are complaining.

I am sorry that you have come across excel -possibly the most inhumane of all the rogues that ruin parking in private car parks. i am more sorry that I have missed your thread until now. As I understand it, their artic. was parked in front of their parking sign and the Blue badge places forcing you to stop somewhere else in the car park to observe the rules. On realising that even the Blue badge places were paid places and that you did not have the correct coinage you quite rightly decided to leave. Thus you had read their terms and until you have read them and signified your acceptance by either paying or staying, you are not classed as being parked. You have a MINiMUM of five minutes leave. Sadly Excel do not understand any words greater than two syllables which is where their problems start. Their greed, ignorance, inhumanity, etc etc all carry on from there. However they do know that Judges do understand what minimum means and are well aware of the Equality Act so I wouldn't be too worried about what excel will do. Plus we still have to see their PCN and when it comes to producing a Notice that complies with the Act relating to private car parks they do not excel at that. I hope that the Iceland MD will cancel the ticket. You still have a couple of other routes you could try. The first one is your Member of Parliament will probably be happy to help as they will need all the votes they can get with an election looming. Plus your local newspaper may also pitch in after hearing your story to go after Iceland and excel. [You may notice I have not merite them with a capital E as it is definitely undeserved.]

They didn't turn up because they knew they would lose so they saved the cost of sending a brief saving them a couple of hundred pounds at least. But still a big relief for you now that it's all over . So congratulations plus you can enjoy your trip that much more.

I will try again...................... Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos. But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute. The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA. It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled. But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar with all the relevant dates.

The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next post. Pofa asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii) (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.

You wouldn't have had the stress of debt collectors and solicitors had you written to the IPC as they would have probably cancelled your PCN shortly after their investigation.

It probably deletes after a certain time. What a shame you did not check at the time. However I have no doubt that there was a PCN envelope under your windscreen wiper as shown quite clearly on one of the photographs. . It would seem strange that it was placed there empty hence the reason I stated a second Notice was issued [though not necessarily sent. As I said in that letter to IPC that was not what the complaint was about and probably IPC will ask about that at the same time if they accept you going direct to IPC for the other matter. It is immaterial how many original PCNs were issued or not issued. You are able to show the two that you have from their sar one of which coincides with the one you received in the post and that is the one that does not agree with the date times of PoFA. Thus breaching not only the Act, but also the IPC Code of Conduct and the ability of UKPCM to obtain data from the DVLA. So leave that part of the letter as good to go. However as it is as Dave [Thank you Dave!} pointed out that it is UKPCM and not UKPCI have amended the letter and posted it below.

Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second PCN was then sent by post on 13/3/24 [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge. This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.

Thank you for posting up the required details and well done for apparently not revealing the identity of the driver. I am assuming you are the keeper? The depth of ignorance of the parking companies is absolutely amazing. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is the law relating to private parking and allows those rogues to be able to transfer the charge from the driver [whose name they do not know] to the keeper after 28 days . This is dependent on them complying with the Act. So many of the don't and Alliance is no different. It would help if we could see what you appeal was and to post the back of the PCN as it is lacking so much of the wording necessary to make it compliant so that in your case only the driver is liable to pay the charge. And of course just entering the ANPR arrival times means that they have failed to specify the parking time which is a requirement.. Because the car park was so busy you had to drive around for quite a while before finally finding a place to park which is when the parking period may actually begin. The poor dears at Alliance have not grasped that particular part of the legislation as yet. To be fair the Act has only been in place for 12 years so one must make allowances for their stupidity . We shouldn't really mock them- but it is fun. You weren't to know but the chances of winning an appeal against Alliance and the IPC is around 5%-and that is high for them. If they allow you to cancel they lose the chance of making money and they would have had a field day when you were there with so many people being caught overstaying because of the chaos in trying to find a parking space then trying to pay. Your snotty letter could go something like this- Dear Cretins, Yes I mean you Alliance. After 12 years one would have thought that even you could produce a compliant PCN. Did you really think I would pay you a penny extra considering the time I wasted trying to pay with long queues at the parking machine, then trying to get a signal to call Just Park. On top of that you then had the cheek to ask for an additional £70 for what dubious unspecified pleasure? You must have made a killing that day charging all those motorists for overstaying because the queues to pay were do long and even walking to pay from the over flow parking fields takes time. And yes I did take photos of the non existent signs in the fields so please don't give me the usual rubbish about your signs being clearly visible. Oh yes that £70. Please tell me and the Court whether that charge included VAT and if it did, why am I being charged to pay your vat? I am sure the Judge would look carefully at that as well as the Inland Revenue. The truth is you had no reasonable cause to ask the DVLA for my data given the chaos at your car park and I believe that you therefore breached my GDPR...................... I expect others will give their views as well.

Thank you for posting the full sar. So they definitely did place the PCN on your vehicle only to remove it 10 minutes later apparently because of a possible problem with the driver which seems highly unlikely [the reason for the PCN removal ]. Did the driver even see the warden at all while they were photographing the car . They did take several pictures spread over 12 minutes or so using a flash so the driver would have seen the car being photographed had they been there. Very strange. You said that you had an onboard camera -are you able to go back and see what happened? Was the warden wearing UKPC clothing? In any event that PCN has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. That should be a Notice to Driver and the follow up PCN should not be sent until 28 days AFTER the day the first PCN was given were it a postal PCN. Instead the knuckleheads have issued the follow up PCN on the 28th day of their dodgy first PCN and so totally blowing all their machinations to get over the fact that the windscreen ticket wasn't a windscreen ticket. In neither case, even if they had been sent properly, they were non compliant. neither of them showed the period of parking which is specified in the Act. Both just show a time of issue at 20.02 but no end period. Their "mistake" in not giving 29 days before issuing their keeper Liability notice, makes the PCN more than just non compliant. It means that the PCN was unlawful and probably deliberate as had UKPC waited until the correct time to send that Notice, it would have delayed it until the Monday. And as they probably knew that had not received the original windscreen PCN perhaps they thought it better to rewrite the Law. Part of that is conjecture but the basic fact is correct-the Notice was unlawful. And for that there should be repercussions. My first thought was the ICO but as it isn't really a breach of data protection it goes higher than that. Perhaps the Site Team would know. I did look at the Legal Ombudsman but they are for complaints against lawyers. I cannot imagine a decent lawyer even countenancing such a thing though were are dealing with third rate ones when involved with some parking companies. For reference PoFA Schedule 4 S8 and S9 [2][f] f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— Their PCN dated 12/04/24 states "as 28 days have now elapsed since the Notice to Keeper was given, Parking Control management [UK] Ltd. [the creditor] are now able ...........to recover the unpaid parking charge from......... the registered keeper. The original PCN was marked by them as being deemed delivered 15/03/2024 so 28 days +1 =13/04/24. Their letter was sent one day early which means they altered or ignored the law . I have never seen that "error" on any other Notice from any of the parking companies. As the Member did not receive the original PCN which was originally a Windscreen ticket but they then changed it to a postal one for some fanciful reason the whole scenario reeks of skullduggery. I am going to ask again from Hamz why their warden might have felt scared about a confrontation with the driver but even if there was a chance the PCN was placed on the windscreen and not removed for around a minute but pictures had already been taken so why remove it? And then why produce a brand new keeper Liability Notice the like of which I have not seen before.

I think it was your response to their claim form that scared them off. We would normally leave that until the Witness Statement because that doesn't give them enough time to counteract a good WS. However DCBL are cowards just like their bailiff section all bluster and heavy with people who don't know how to deal with them but back down quickly when up against tougher opposition. I read your defence again and tried to think who wrote it as one of the things that it did was to point out the failings in the cases that the rogues often put in to help their flawed arguments. didn't sound like anyone from MSE and National Consumer Service have gone under. B789 would be a likely candidate but after that I am struggling to think who else might have helped.

The CEO of Tesco Plc is [email protected]

That is great news John. I guess that they bottled when they saw your defence-very detailed and headed off some of the arguments that they would have used in their WS. Why would they risk going to court having to answer all those points and finding someone to rebut them would probably cost more than what the Court would have awarded them had you lost [£100 ] since no one at DCBL has that level of knowledge . And they do cave in when they see they have a fight on their hands.

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.