Hi welcome to the Forum. If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper. The PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues.

The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.

Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e] says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc. All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could still have been within the time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you .

As they have failed to deliver their original PCN you will need to send them an SAR where they should provide that PCN. It should show the address they used . If it is not your current one that would explain the non delivery. If it was correct then perhaps the Post office messed up. A more cynical view would be that UKPC didn't send it so that you couldn't claim the reduction. It appears that UKPC have been there for some time but I have been unable to find any pictures of their Notices.The leisure park itself is pretty big so while some parts maybe give 5 hours free parking other parts may have restrictions like permits. I haven't been there for years -I went to Nandos and the bowling centre . I am surprised that they are now infested with UKPC as the place is plenty big enough not to require their dubious services. If you live not to far away it would help if you could get some legible pictures of their signs. Be carful to park in an area that doesn't require a permit and take photos of the entrance signs, the five hour sign and the permit only sign as well as any other signs that are different from the previous signs. Also if their is a payment machine could you please photograph that.

You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.

The NTK is pretty good at complying with the Act as is the Notice to Driver so no help there. I seem to remember OPS getting hammered by a Judge [in brighton I think] so they seem to have tightened po their act since. The organ grinder is the MA and the monkey is OPS.

The Court s pretty informal. The Judge [who you call "Judge" rather than Sir or madam] will not be wearing a wig and gown just a suit and it is advisable that you do the same and a tie. Other than that the Judge will do most of the talking .If they haven't received a WS from the scrotes either the case will probably be thrown out straight away. Usually the Judge will ask their lawyer a number of questions then ask for your take on things and then the case will be decided. UKPC 0 Mystic Bertie 5. Then ask for your expenses time off work [if not being paid by your company while in Court, travelling and parking costs and occasionally they will allow something like 5 hours research at I think £8 per hour. Later celebrate and post us the result and how much fun it was. You will wonder why you worried about it so much. Next time will be much easier.

You need to send Met an SAR and they will send you the original PCN .. However all their PCNs appear to be the same and as the car parks are on airport land the keeper is not liable for the debt. Only the driver is responsible. But there are other considerations which can be enough for you to win. Poorly lit signage; scam site, it's a penalty; as well as problems with the contract. So you have a lot of things going for you as well as Met are not keen to take well defended cases to Court.

Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs, viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone. The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you.

Dave's email is a bit of a mouthful. The director of Tesco Direct is [email protected]

No you don't have to pay them. it is their scam which the Courts know about. There was a classic case a few years ago that decided that £100 was not a penalty because that company had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear of cars that overstayed etc because they were there to maximise the availability of car park spaces. As Starbucks was closed in your case, Met have no legitimate interest so their £100 charge IS a penalty. Therefore the case would be thrown out. if they took you to Court and you turned up in Court to defend yourself. So no you shouldn't pay.

I wouldn't bother reading the Dummies book you are already overqualified to work there. And you have now gone over their heads again quoting CPR. As far as they know that is to do with resuscitation. They still don't know that the PCN is non compliant!!

Well done for boning up on Schedule 4 . I expect you understand the point I was making about not inviting the keeper to pay the charge. At the start of Section 9 the wording includes the word "must" which is a very important word legally. It means that Highview have to include all the requirements stated in that section or subsection. If it's missed out the PCN does not comply with the Act and the keeper cannot be held liable to pay. You have to make allowances for them . The Act has only been in force since 2012 so it will take them a few more years yet before they get it right. But it does emphasise the comprehension level of who you are dealing with. Their solicitors are a tad below that level so most of your snotty letter will doubtless go over their heads. But the Judge will appreciate the humour. if it gets that far. Probably the irony too of the solicitor getting some legal information that they are unaware of.

The Land owners are Nuveen Real Estate , a large American property investment company. The UK director is [email protected] and his surname is Sales he s not the Sales director. You will have to specify the car park as he has probably never heard of Norwich [or Knarritch as the local call it].

You could still write to head office. I find that some supermarket managers do not have the authority to make these decisions. So rather than admit that they fob their customers off. One would have thought that as a regular customer H.O. would take that into consideration in dealing with you request. Explain that there is a five minute Consideration period that has been ignored by UKPPO which is in breach of the Code of Practice that are supposed to observe. And as such they have breached your GDPR There is no need to appeal. You already have enough knowledge to fight off their stupid claim as I pointed out on Post 2. They do not know who was driving and as long as you don't appeal they will have no proof to name who was driving in Court. You as keeper are not liable because the PCN is not compliant. You were only there for under four minutes with a five minute Consideration period. They have no chance of winning should they go to Court. You have as near to an open and shut case in your favour. Why would you want to appeal.There is no mileage in it for them to accept your appeal especially as you did park where you shouldn't. You can totally ignore everything they send you except if they send you a Letter of Claim. Then come back to us if they do and we will get you to send a suitably snotty letter which hopefully will change their mind about going any further. Go on with your life and don't worry. And we are always here if you wobble