I reckon you have nothing to lose at this stage by issuing a claim through moneyclaimonline (after letter before action etc) other than the court fee. If you get judgment, enforcing it may be tough. Does CCA help -particularly if you put in your claim unlawful penalty charges for breach of contract (ie establish there was a contract)?

Only if you want the claim to be dismissed. There is no requirement for proportionality. It is one of the things that the adjudicators effectively described as having been specifically omitted from the legislation as necessary given the volume of cases.

It occurred to me that I have drafted a number of letters and am in the process of pulling them together and was going to post them. I see two problems: I write letters in a certain style (less is more/short and sweet etc) others prefer a different approach and it is a personal decision. Secondly, we know that PPCs look at this forum. Sometimes it seems that their employees crop up in Troll like capacities. What we don't want is it to be obvious to the PPC what the strategy of their "victim" is going to be so they can head it off at the pass. Something I will give some thought to over then next few days - I have some ideas!

Is it just me or do others have difficulty loading the image of the face of the PCN? As far as the reverse is concerned I had a quick look and saw two material drafting errors: Liability appears to be imposed on "you" rather than employing the 3rd person imperfect such as "if the penalty charge is not paid". It also states that the NTO will be served on the keeper. Wrong, the NTO will be served on the person appearing to the Local Authority to be the owner. In the circumstances described, for a PCN to be enforced via an NTO there must be a lawful reason to issue a PCN, a lawfully served PCN and a lawfully drafted PCN. The first two tests in this case appear to have been passed but the third does not. There are perfectly adequate qrounds for challenging this PCN. Take a look at the PATAS key cases. These are London buts just as persuasive on the adjudicators. The Barnet case is a High Court decision and is binding (to the extent that the issues on interpretation are R.D. not O.D.).

I reckon the Bank are saying that they have no liability because you were [edit] forced to pay under duress. Is this a council car park normally? Take photographs of the signs, showing the words and the signs in context of the car park. Get details of the clampers, are they registered? Unless I am mistaken, this would be a small claims track case in the county court and costs cannot be awarded either way.

The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, the LA can at their earlier stage.

In any event, the appropriate remedy for an alleged failure to supply services is to sue to recover loss or damages sustained as a result of a failure to provide services. What you have done is to fail to pay for the services (if that is what they are) by driving in the CC zone without payment. Ordinarily, failure to pay for services will result in you getting sued for the fees you should have paid. However, the law makers have specifically provided in the case of the CC for a penalty charge to be levied. There is nothing to stop you mounting a claim for loss or damages as a result of TFL allegedly failing to provide you with the services you claim they are contractually obliged to do. However, quite apart from the huge legal hurdles you would be giving yourself to jump through to prove that they were services, they were failed to provide and that you suffered loss of damage as a result, the real danger for you is that this would not be a small claims track case but fast or multi track and thus you would be exposed to TFLs legal costs should you lose (and I suspect you will). Entirely up to you and good luck whichever way you go!

aka Have you already received a letter from them or just a ticket/invoice? Do NOT write the first letter. When you have a letter, get your wife to write as follows: Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I acknowledge receipt of your captioned letter. I am the owner of the vehicle in question. You need to take this matter up with the driver concerned. If your allegation is that I was the driver then please produce evidence of this to substantiate your claim. If your allegation is that I as the owner of the vehicle am responsible, then please cite the relevant case and/or statute law. In the meantime I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed or any amount at all is due to you and in the absence of the above evidence and/or citations will not be prepared to enter into any further correspondence with you. Yours faithfully If your wife receives a further letter then get her to write as in one of my earlier posts and you write as follows: Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I have been asked by my wife to handle this matter for her. She wrote to you on [dd mmmm yyyy] (copy enclosed) and since that letter has not received the citations or evidence requested. My wife feels that she has done all that she can to assist you in this matter and unless you are able to substantiate your claim against her I must reassert her denial of any liability to you and request that you cease writing to her. If you continue to write to her we may have to consider what steps to take and this may include making a complaint to the police for harassment. Yours faithfully You may get accused of being the driver and/or you wife may be asked/told who/to say who the driver was. If this happens the body of your letter should be: I regret to advise that the driver could have been any one of a number of people and my wife keeps no records of who has driven her car on any given day. All I can do is to reiterate that it is you who must prove both the alleged debt and who the alleged debtor is and unless you are able to do so I restate what I have said before, specifically in my letter of [dd mmmm yyyy] regarding desisting in this correspondence. In the highly unlikely event that they send photos that clearly show you in proximity to the car or in the car, come back and we can figure out what to say.

aka, With the greatest of respect to your friend, what this is doing is trading aggro now for risk and aggro later. Possession is 9/10 of the law and you lose the initative if you hand over cash.

feralcat2, The only possible data that CEL could have is of use is photos/videos. They can perfectly properly charge up to £10 for them. There's no point though as if it goes to court they will have to produce them for free. It's all part of the [problem].

I suggest your wife writes as follows: Dear Sirs, I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I have appointed my husband [Mr John Smith] to act on my behalf and protect my interests in this matter. Please direct all further correspondence to him. Yours faithfully Court is a different matter. Your wife would be the defendant but you can go as a "McKenzie man" (may be Mackenzie but it doesn't matter).

If you are going to appeal, the golden rule is to appeal on the grounds that are most likely to get the ticket cancelled. These may not be the same as the grounds that make you feel aggrieved.

Postink link to this thread on the restitution issue for future reference.

A controlled parking zone with residents parking bays. At the boundaries there are signs that tell you the operation times. It's the parking ticket.

What sort of ticket is it? Was it issued by the police or police traffic warden or by a local authority parking attendant? Can you scan and post both sides of the ticket and post it here together with photos of where you were parked and the broken lines.

When I post, I tend to think about what I would find helpful if I was asking the question. Bit like the dreaded question when shopping with the other half "does my bum look big in this?" The unadulterated truth is not always the most helpful.

Be interested to know what the council say. Just don't expect them to be too clued up.

HarrassedMum, I have read the letter and pcn you sent me. Am I right in thinking that the pcn came with the letter rather than being stuck to your windscreen. I can fully see why this has spooked you. It does look official but if you look beyond the surface you can start to pick holes. I'm identifying some of them as pointers for others and the future: The Parking Charge Notice States: "It is an offence for an unauthorised person to remove or interfere with this notice". It is? Cite the statute or case law then!? How does a person know if they are "authorised"? States: "Breach of Rules and Regulations" so it's a breach of contract then is it, not trespass. States : "In consideration of which you have agreed to pay the sum of £[loads]" Have you really? You pay consideration in discharge of a contract not for breaking one. If you break one then the law on penalties applies (ie they are unlawful except in narrow circumstances). States: You were "illegally parked" Cite the statute or case law then!? States: "It is an offence to transfer or accept tickets". It is? Cite the statute or case law then!? States: "Photographs will only be sent at a cost of £5". Nah, I'll wait for the evidence bundle when you have to "disclose" it. That'll be free! States: [Appeals must be received] "within seven days of the date of this notice". Ignores Interpretation Act, unreasonable as the pcn was not received within seven days of its own date. The Covering Letter States: "the time limits for payment and appeals can be read as commencing from the issue date or this letter". How kind! What's the "issue date"? What about Interpretation Act? States: "since this is a civil matter it is decided in law that the registered keeper is vicariously responsible". Oh yeah I forgot that!!! Please be good enough to refresh my memory by citing the statute and case law that decided this? States: "If you are not the person who the letter is addressed to then you must return the letter and all enclosures if any back to the company immediately. It is possible that sometimes the debtors do deny their identity and we therefore request you supply us a copy of a current utility bill (eg gas/electric/land line telephone) or a current tennancy agreement in your name as proof of occupancy." Must I? It's you who has to prove stuff not me! Such impertinence!

ParkingFairly, There's a lot here and I will try to deal with as much as I can. I have also asked the mods to move this to the parking ticket section as I think it will get the attention of the people who will best be able to help. If I understand you correctly, you have been getting tickets for parking with one or more wheels other than on the carriageway. The first thing to understand is that parking in this way in London is not allowed unless it is exempt. Sounds daft but basically what it means is that yo cannot park on the pavement unless there are signs to say that you can. From your post it sounds like the reason why you have been getting tickets is because you were parked outside the marked lines on the road and pavement. So the first thing to ask is is there any reason why you cannot park within the lines in future? You also say that many of the tickets have got to the bailiff stage. Is this because you have not appealed to the council first once you got the notice to owner and then to the adjudicator? Did you ignore them and hope they would go away or did you not get the paperwork? You say that you have considered applying for a disabled bay but that there are others in your road with disabled badges too. Can you all get together and ask the council to instal sufficient bays for you all. Finally, do you have the paperwork for your old tickets, including the PCNs. It is a bit of a long shot and hopefully someone else can tell you what to do as its not my strength. You MAY be able to claim some of the money back as Barnet had last year a case against them that their tickets were unlawful. If you don't have the paperwork then there still MAY be a solution but it will be some more work. Don't get your expectations too high on this, I don't know how it will work but if someone does not post an answer in the next few days I'll do some research for you. In the meantime I really suggest you only park in the marked areas. Good luck

This is the reaction they want and depend on. They rely on people feeling scared and confusing what they are doing with an LA ticket. They also rely on the laws of numbers, just a percentage of people paying up is a result for them. My view is not to. They will not issue a summons as they know they won't win. They will try some intimidation first but with support from here you will be able to stand firm.

feralcat2, I'm a bit confused by this. All I seem to be able to work out is that you made a Subject Access Request to CEL and they are saying to you that they will deal with your request if and when you pay them £10. They are entitled to do this. Personally I would have said that they should disclose what "evidence" they wish to rely on to prove their case free. If they don't do that then I would seriously question whether the data exists. Perhaps I am missing something?

HarrassedMum, Thanks for sending that through which I have looked at. Firstly what I am going to say is only what I would do in your shoes. You must make up your own mind on what to do and take action at your own risk. That’s the legal disclaimer bit, now to get constructive. Firstly, it is clear that this is a private “fee” not a regular police or LA parking ticket (which differ between each other but more importantly from the sort of thing that you have received). Police or LA parking tickets have the force of law behind them but cost a lot less. Private tickets generally do not have the force of law (but can do if carefully done) and rely not on law but ignorance, harassment and intimidation. They can and should be stood up to. I take it that the letter through the post some days after the alleged incident was the first you heard of it. That seems to be clear from what you have sent me. It would be useful also if I could see the letter you received, I have sent you a PM with my email address if you can scan and send it to me. Would you be able to get a picture of the “No Parking” sign that you saw, or at least the text? Don’t worry if it takes a few days. What these people have to do is to prove that you entered into a legally binding contract with them which would have involved you providing unqualified acceptance to their terms and conditions. There is nothing in your e-mail that suggests that you did. In fact quite the contrary, it seems clear to me that had they made you aware of the charges you would not have parked there. “They” have a further problem in that if their sign does indeed say “No Parking” and that’s it then they cannot really claim a contract but would have to base their claim on trespass and they would then have to prove their losses. When you go back and look at the signs, have a look for signs saying that images are being recorded by CCTV. (I’m assuming that is how the alleged incident was recorded.) The Data Protection Act requires them to have them. Make a note of what the signs say. The bottom line is, I think that you may be receiving some uncomfortable and aggressive letters over the next few weeks and months. I will happily assist you with drafting letters to deflect them. They may well try and intimidate you with threats of debt collectors and bailiffs. They can take no action against you without a court order and to get that you will have had an opportunity to defend yourself in court. BUT, THE REALITY IS that it is extremely unlikely to get to that stage. Remember there are people here to offer help and support.

OK, it would be helpful if you could send me the text of the e-mail you sent by PM. Before I respond I'd like to see exactly what you said but suggest you don't post it in a public forum. The easy way to do that is to click my name in blue to the left of this post

HarassedMum, My advice is to do nothing and see if they come back to you. Are you the registered keeper?

Your insurers may be able to help with reg nos.