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.

In response to your post 52, the new Government Private parking Bill has been withdrawn for the moment and will not take effect until it comes into force. It cannot come soon enough but in the meantime the rogues are trying to rip as many motorists off as possible before the changes come into force. Yes their interpretation of the Grace period is ludicrous it defies logic and the Law until it comes into force. But that's what you get when the lunatics run the asylum.

Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..

Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA. Take the Consideration period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"]. You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink from their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance. I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury". It wasn't tantamount, it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.

If everyone who wanted or needed a permit could get one easily how would PCM make any money?

bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced in Law but not PoFA and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair when the decision is so bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.

The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN does not comply with the wording of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First reason Section 9 [2] [e] "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;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?

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.