Apologies, I genuinely can't answer that. What they will do is try and make you think that they will and they will try and make you think that they have certain powers before they do so. If they do attempt to take you to court then at least they are being honest about it and you will have the opportunity to defend yourself. The process is not something to be concerned about, it's very informal. Think of it as more of a round table discussion. Rules are much more relaxed and certainly no wigs and gowns etc.

Don't have a clue. What you absolutely must not do is to let any bailiff or anyone purporting to be a bailiff into your house unless and untill a court has given judgment against you which you have failed to meet and futher that the court has issued a warrant of execution. I'm not saying that that is where it will go of course, what I am saying is that if you let a bailiff into your home you lose certain rights. Prior to that, if a bailiff or person purporting to be a bailiff attempts to force their way past you into your home call 999 immediately and report an intruder who is attempting to or has gained entry by assault.

I think it's now clear. It clarifies for anyone for whom it wasn't clear that there aren't just 4 categories that forum members "from the other side" fall into. I would certainly feel that it would have been a reasonable interpretation of your post to think that was what you meant.

It's the small claims procedure in the county court. The term "small claims court" is a misnomer.

As an observer I would say it is relevant because, Bookworm you said: And then went on to say: The point that I sense that electron99 was trying to make was that there was a bailiff who didn't quite fit into the mould you cast but was nevertheless "set upon" simply as a result of the fact that he was a bailiff. I thought the post was relevant and I'm afraid if I was electron99 I would have found your response unnecessarily agressive and challenging. But I can accept that you may not have intended it to be so.

That may well be strictly true. But I can also see how others would see it differently. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Perky apologist. I can see that he also challenged people to think a few things out and was also quite happy to tell an incomplete story and enjoy needling people.

I would suggest that you are right to think that it is highly likely that the ticket is unlawful. I think that you are on fairly safe grounds that the ticket cannot be enforced and key to this will be proof that the date of parking and the date of issue and incident are different (among other things). For the time being do nothing. I would not be surprised if you hear from them again. If and when you do, the first thing to do is to ask for the identity and proof of identity of the driver so you know where to direct their enquiry and say nothing else. Then come back here for more advice and support.

For me, only having joined this forum a few days ago, I have quite enjoyed reading through the threads on which Perky has been participating and gotten involved in spats. That's just the schoolboy sense of humour in me. I think that it is perfectly possible to demonstrate that by parking in a certain way it is possible to demonstrate that a driver has entered into a contract for which a fee is payable and which is legally enforcable. In a nutshell that is all that Perky has been seeking to say. OK it does look like that a corner is cut on driver identification but if it increases their result rate by a margin he probably doesn't care too much. Perky was a mole for this forum from the other side. He participated and people may not have agreed with him. He gave hints and some things away - ok not much but it was something. Bear in mind that Perky and the others on the otherside gain free information here on the arguments etc that we have against their tactics and we do not have the same against their thinking. Perky will continue to observe this forum but we will not benefit from anything from him, however small. Now, who do you think is the winner here?

I agree it needs to say from when the period starts. I would also argue that because there is no "to" time noted there is no proof that the car was parked, only that it was there. The PCN is also lacking a bunch of statutory information. It may be on the reverse but attention is not drawn to it. Attention is drawn to instructions for payment but this is on the payment slip which has been held not to be part of the PCN. There are strong arguments for suggesting that what is on the reverse is not part of the PCN. This was indicated by the judge in the JR of the Barnet case and is therefore binding on the adjudicators.

Agreed but they are strongly persuasive.

I would suspect that Perky (and others in the same position) rely on 1) the law of numbers being that many will sooner pay (for a variety of reasons), 2) the fact that many keepers are owners, 3) many will incriminate themselves and others by admitting who the driver was. Basically it relies on ignorance, much the same as a confidence trickster. And/or the the same principle as the person who (allegedly) placed a small add in Private Eye saying "Last chance to send £1. Send £1 to PO Box 123" and got £thousands.

That may well be the case. The case summary certainly makes no mention. It could also be the case that things have changed since the cases cited as precedents - prior to decriminalisation when the burden of proof was different. Just guessing!

No if you win your case it will either be: a) because a court has decided that your case is justified, or b) because you have default judgment against a bank who failed to defend, or c) because the bank take a commercial view to settle. English Law makes no provision to allow the defendant to seek to recover if the law is later changed or clarified (which is, in essence what a finding against the OFT would do).

Time to say Hi. I've known about this group for some time but only just found it. I am a veteran of claiming bank charges (from BankChargesHell) and also have experience on dodgy parking tickets.

I would recommend care here. In London the Parking adjudicator has ruled on this issue. See this "key case". The salient point is: