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...

I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is pay to park and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.

he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email is [email protected]

I'd go the whole hog. Complain to the ICO as it is a breach of GDPR sending info to an address where they know the person involved does not live there. And about the situation is about to become worse because a person known to the person involved is moving out. Tell BPA that the ICO are involved and that PE are breaching BPA Code of Conduct.

I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I had a TR5.

Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.

If there is a whitelist and few intruders there only seems the residents to make money from. It would leave wondering what the incentive was for the MAs if there was nothing in it for them except the obvious complaints from the residents. Not that I am saying that they are getting a backhander but there seems little other reasons unless they are trying to show how well run the place is managed-not. If they ran it properly there would be no need for OPs.

The whole point of white listing is so that those who are entitled to park there don't get ticketed -like cleaners for example. And the residents too of course if the system is designed to prevent non residents from misusing the area which is the usual excuse for bringing in the parking scrotes. that they are also targeting the residents would imply that you are fair game and your MAs are quite happy to make make money out of you all. Nice guys.

And it is always good to get a win in Court against them.

If that is the first final notice you have received you can probably expect two or thee more to follow. This to test your resolve. They are hoping that these frightening letters will scare you into paying. After the third or fourth final demand they then have to decide whether to actually proceed with a court claim or forget about you for a while. You were not the driver, their PCN is non compliant .No biggy. Slam dunk win for you.

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. I have noticed one thing. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is on their Point C that the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable. So on your No keeper Liability section You may need to add 8a after 8. 8a . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving. BY pursuing the keeper . when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails.

I am sorry about getting your status mixed up. I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is in their Point C that states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable. So on your No keeper Liability section You may prefer to alter 13 to . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving. BY only pursuing the keeper when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails. See what the Site team thinks as it should stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.