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

I couldn't agree more Maffster. I really hate when I read the sanctimonious bullshine from the likes of the BPA and the IPC when trying to justify the existence of their industry. This is from the new IPC Code of practice "This updated Code of Practice for members of the International Parking Community (the IPC), the parking trade body that drives up standards across our industry, will create a better parking experience for the law and rule-abiding majority of those who use our members’ car parks, whilst ensuring that those who flout the rules are encouraged to change their behaviour." Do they really believe that they are driving up standards.across their Industry????? They are the depository for some of the biggest rogues . Birds of a feather spring to mind. Hot off the Press. Apparently Excel has just switch ed from BPA to IPC. Above the headline there is a statement from BPA. BPA says appeals service is independent and scrutinised. You would think that it would be something that was welcomed by an honest, transparent car park company........

Welcome to the Forum. The PCN must be subject to Bye laws as the warning near the bottom of the PCN does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9 [2][f[] of the Act it should say: (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (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; Their version states they are pursuing you as the driver [because of the Bye laws they cannot transfer the liability from the driver to the keeper] even though you are the keeper. Should it go to Court Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Obviously on many occasions another member of the family may be driving instead of the keeper. Indeed anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your car. if any of the three cars were not driven by the keeper they are not liable to pay the PCN only the driver is. as long as they do not divulge who was driving those lovely people at Alliance haven't a hope of winning against them in Court. What a shame. However while those keepers who were not driving are in the clear all is not lost for the other keeper drivers. Alliance still have to prove who was driving which is difficult providing those keepers do not appeal. It is quite often that on appeal the keeper may say "I entered the car park at....." immediately giving away that they were the driver. Plus even if you appeal it won't be accepted as a] they lose £100 straight away and b] mostly all the major car parking companies are dishonest scrotes. In the meantime you will be on the receiving end of threatening letters from Alliance, unregulated debt collectors and fifth, sixth or even lower rated solicitors all trying to frighten the life out of you to cough up. They can all be safely ignored since if you don't contact any of them they don't know who was driving so have no information that the can use in Court to identify the driver. Some time in the future they may send you a Letter of Claim which must not be ignored. Just let us know and we will advise a suitable snotty letter to send them which will show that you are not afraid of them and are happy to turn up in court knowing that you will win. Sorry it was a bit long winded.

What do the Site team think about this- Write a complaint to excel's Complaints dept, stating that you are the keeper of vehicle xxxxx but not the driver on the day. You saw on one of the photos included with the PCN [give them the number of your PCN] that a notice was placed on my vehicle while my driver was unloading. By the time my driver returned a few minutes after, the Notice had been withdrawn. The most likely person to have done that was the photographer as the time difference was too short for anyone else to have removed it. I understand that if this was a Notice to Driver that the PCN you sent should not have arrived until at least 28 days later. Could you please explain why that Notice was removed and show me that document prior to me raising the issue with the ICO. That way the scrotes know the situation -that they have been rumbled and should they continue with a non compliant PCN they have no chance in Court .

Thanks for clearing up the time question. i don't know why they even issued you a ticket as you left well within the 5 minute Consideration period [that is to give the motorist time to read the T&Cs before deciding to park or leave because the rules were unacceptable .They have actually breached your GDPR as well as not issuing a compliant PCN. It was late night/early morning when I saw your thread so was kind of tired and missed your blue badge [I am not currently in the UK]. The first thing to do is to visit Tesco and speak to the manager. Explain you were there late at night getting something for your disabled daughter; you are a regular customer; there were no disabled parking spaces nor any other parking places; it was dark and the electric charging spots were empty; you had never used them before except when they were disabled spots so you had never needed to read them even had you been aware that there were any. You were in and out for less than four minutes and would have been less had there not been a long queue. I used to go to Sainsbury where my wife regularly got PCNs for overstaying and they always cancelled her PCNs I am hoping that Tesco will be similarly as helpful to you. If he/she is not then a letter to their head office might get a better result. But a personal visit [not using the ev spaces ] is better than a phone call. Take your PCN with you so they can write down the reference number and point out that their should be a 5 minute Consideration period and you were gone before they should have issued the ticket. That would be the quickest way to resolve it. Sorry Dave our posts crossed-mine took a bit longer.

No you're not doomed. It's a shame you covered up the dates and times on your PCN since they can possibly help your case when they don't comply with the requirements of the rules in private car parks. Could you please therefore include the arrival and departure times as well as the date of the offence and the date on which they alleged they sent you the PCN. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.since the wording should invite the keeper to pay the outstanding amount. Also I cannot see on the PCN that UKPPO are the Creditor though I may have missed it since it is so unusual not to include it. The upshot is that you as keeper are no longer liable to pay the charge if the driver fails to pay within 28 days-0nly the driver is now liable. As Courts [assuming it gets that far ] do not accept that the driver and the keeper are not the same these rogues will have a hard job who was driving unless you appeal or have appealed and revealed who was driving. You did say that you weren't parked there long and had that been correct you have perhaps 15 minutes where you might have had a further. argument. As it judging by the confusing times mentioned in the wording or the PCN you were there for almost an hour? However as the light was not good and I presume the signs were not illuminated that is a reason that you could not see the sign. And did you have your blue badge showing ? Interestingly the post code quoted does not agree with the Post office one in West houghton = BL5 3JS Are there two different Tesco car parks in Bolton. You obviously could not be in two places at the same time...............

Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that Excel know who was driving. So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.

As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .

The fact that your PCN arrived late is irrelevant. The criteria is that PCNs are deemed as having arrived two business days after posting. Nevertheless as Nicky said the PCN still does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Do we believe that the PCN was posted on the 27th or was it actually posted so that it would arrive on the day that was too late to be able to pay the reduced sum? If you work on the presumption that most of the private parking companies are a combination of unscrupulous scrotes and village idiots you can make your own decision from there.. If you have kept the envelope it might give you some proof. The PCN should specify the period of parking which it doesn't. There are times on the photos but they are not part of the Notice. In any event you weren't there long enough to as you left within the Consideration period of a minimum of five minutes. On top of that there was a court case Jopson v Homeguard defined what parking was, and unloading and delivering was not classed as parked. Moreover as you were not the driver and the PCN is not compliant you as the keeper are no liable to pay the charge. And they do not know the name or the address of the driver so they are pretty well stuffed. Another fault with the PCN is in section 9 [2][f] where their PCN states one thing and the Act says another -" (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;" They miss out the words in parentheses which has been enough on its own to have a previous case dismissed. I am also uneasy about the mention of further costs involving debt collection which are not mentioned anywhere in the Act. Probably because in the Act the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the signage. That alone should make the PCN non compliant on its own.