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?

I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  

The United Autoworkers Union took a risk in a Republican - and often anti-union - part of the US.View the full article

good spot...though i'm unsure, but it does seem like it can't be related to this latest issue as the OP mentions she knew nothing about the  order. dx  

wasn't that for the CCJ for the mental capacity with the leaseholder?   SO would be different to this.