No on both counts but it would not be hard to find if they really wanted, however what you would need to watch for is that they don't realise and send a claim, which if you don't acknowledge would be granted in default. (which you could have set aside but would cost you) CEL have issued a few claims however there normal MO if a defence is entered is not to pay the hearing fee and discontinue.

Was this a screen jobby or was it ANPR it may well be and it usually is with CEL that they have timed out in regard to pursuing the keeper.

What you have to remember is Newlyn chase legit debts, they will have template letters, some desk jockey will see they have had no response from the last letter/letters and send the next. They receive a percentage of what they receive, plus any costs ie: postage/calls so they will keep the pressure on if they send it back they will get nowt. Hence the letters. If you contact them now they will think they have you worried. Since you have ignored them this long you may as well see it through now.

I gather you are on the H&S litigation letter? Not to worry that is ANPR in a different dress or they are trading illegally.

Trethowns won an Aintree case this week unfortunately the Judge went with this! "The claimants claim is liquidated damages for a breach of contract following the defendents vehicle being in breach of the claimants terms and conditions whilst parked on the claimants private property. the breach was for parking on double yellow lines, not in a marked bay, on a pavement, resulting in obstruction or inconvenience to others, The charge is a pre-determinded fixed amount brought about by the defendent in seeking to use the claimants site other then in accordance with the conditions under which he has entered. the conditions are imposed for the orderly running of the car park on the site. It cannot be said that the charge causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights as wheter the charge will be levied or not depends on the actions of the defendent. the charge is levied under the contract, The breach is the defendents vehicle being parked contrary to the terms and conditions. The £50 is a charge levied for the defendents vehicle not being parked in a authorised area. it is not a penalty for the defendent breaching the contract, with reference to the charge given, in the case of Hadleigh V baxendale it was found that the charge was in fact liquidated damages and not punitive charge, moreover the wording penalty and fine should not be viewed as significant nor deprive the claimant from remuneration as in the case of OPC V Thurlow. Here the court stated however you word it, the test is weather the sum agreed is a genuine pre estimate of loss, therefore the court has to look at what the reality of the matter is". "The british parking association code of practise is not relevant or applicaple in these circumstances, the losses the claimant suffers as a direct result of people breaching the parking terms and conditions are the cost of employing staff to monitor the car parking areas, the cost of cameras giving to staff in order to take photographic evidence of each incident aswel as printing administration and maintenance costs in no uncertain terms does the claimant profit from issuing of breach of contract notices. The charges merely cover the pre estimated losses suffered and in most cases the trust does make a loss. moreover a genuine estmate of losses does not need to be a precisely calculated figure as in the case of Dunlop V New garage. here lord dunedin stated, It is no obstacle to the sum stipulated being a pre estimate of damage that the consequences of the breach are such as to make precise pre estimation almost an impossibility". I dont see how a security person who would be there anyway can be calculated into the equation. As we have seen before the county court can be a lottery.

You could try an appeal to PATAS using the fluttering ticket approach, but if you do and don't win, you will lose the discount and the £50 will need to be paid. If you don't pay these can become messy and cost you hundreds!

Maybe your next will be an Christmas card with a final final offer! Or should that be final, final, final, final offer!

The act states the "Keeper" who is presumed unless otherwise proven to be the "registered keeper" on the V5c. For official tickets the RK is presumed the owner, hence you receive a NTO, and why a PPC will send you a NTK. They could not enforce against the owner as the owner could be a bank or a finance company, or your aunt Mabel!

Its not sold on I bet the first was DRP+ then Zenith, that's desk No1 and desk No 2 in the same office. They in their own right can do nothing but ask for payment. If they dont receive payment all they can do is send it back to AS or to a solicitor acting for AS to issue a claim. You will as a last gasp offer be asked for £49.99 to settle. Since POFA AS have never taken anyone to court!

Get a free certificate of posting from the PO!

There seems to be plenty of defence points to pick out of their own T&Cs here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/car_parking_penalties_for_staff. Here is one for starters! 4.5 Night Staff Staff working nights i.e. between 20:45 hours and 07:45 hours and displaying a valid staff permit are allowed to park on all visitors’ car parks, however it is recommended that night staff should use Chadwick car park, opposite Main Entrance which is the one most frequently used and therefore many people in the locality. Night staff are not permitted to park in any marked disabled bays. And then! 11.2 Penalties for Illegal / Unauthorised parking To maintain car park management and preserve its credibility, a firm consistent approach will be adopted for all offenders. This will be achieved by using the following sanctions: 11.2.1 Staff, Patients and Visitors a) First offence – a warning notice will be issued and is valid for 6 months. b) Further offences will result in the issue of a breach of contract notice if within 6 month timescale of issue of warning. c) A payment of £10.00 will be imposed if paid within 14 days. Anyone who wishes to appeal against the breach of contract notice is asked to put their reasons for the appeal in writing to the Divisional General Manager of Diagnostics Therapies & Facilities, Davenport House, Royal Bolton Hospital, Minerva Road, Farnworth, Bolton, BL4 0JR, within 10 days of receiving the breach of contract notice. Quoting the serial number on the letter. d) Failure to pay within 14 days and the Trust will instigate action by it’s solicitors to pursue payment. A payment of £50.00 plus solicitors costs will be incurred if payment is received within 28 days of the issue of the notice. e) Failure to pay within 28 days will result in the matter being pursued via the courts, except in exceptional mitigating circumstances. f) Once a breach of contract notice has been issued car park / security staff are not authorised to discuss the matter. So I don't see were the offer of £20 came from.

You cant they have to give a POPLA reference when they refuse an appeal to them. On the first NTK did it give an option to name the driver or was it simply a request for payment? They do not need to use POFA or POPLA but that means they can only make a claim against the driver. DRP are just a debt collector who can do nothing but send letters!

They think they are clever with their wording the "appropriate agency" can only be ANPR ltd or an solicitor acting for them. H&S Litigation are either ANPR trying to scare people or they are acting illegally as the have no credit licence so can not collect 3rd party debts. Watch out if they do send you a letter the POPLA code may well be disguised.

Did you appeal to ANPR, and did you receive a rejection letter? What is their "intent" and who is it from?

The RK would need to ask. Regards the POFA it doesn't say they can't, but if they were relying on it they would have had to abide by all the conditions, ie: timescales, compliant documents and such.

However thats off them they can aquire your details but you need to find out why they asked. Going by that statement I would bet they have applied because of a byelaw breach.

What you need to do is contact the DVLA and ask on what grounds they asked for your information. To issue a parking charge they would need to be BPA AOS members. However they could request them for other reasons, I would guess at two options 1: trespass or 2: under a byelaw. If they aquired the information for trespass then they would have to sue you for trespass, if under a byelaw then it would be a criminal case. There is another option they used a AOS member which is not allowed.

Highview normally do Tesco.

I was just reporting it, member Bargepole over on MSE PPP was the person involved in the defence!

A little worrying that the judge seemed to think the £100 was sort of sanctioned by the OFT.

From MSE. In the: High Wycombe County Court Before: District Judge Jones Claim No.: 3QT60598 Claimant: ParkingEye Ltd – represented by Mr Matthews of LPC Law Defendant: Mrs Victoria Gardam – represented by myself Date: 14 November 2013 The defendant was being pursued as the registered keeper. Another driver had parked the car at EuroGarages / Starbucks, Bath Road, Heathrow, on 11/10/2012 and stayed for 1h 48m when the signage said 1h 30m maximum. All correspondence had been ignored , up until when the claim was issued. We went into a side room for the hearing, established who everyone was, and DJ Jones started by saying that the first point she wished to address was the issue of the breach of planning regulations. The planning permission for the site states “a maximum of two hours”, and she felt that PE were not in breach of that by reducing it to 1.5. If it had said a minimum of two hours, they would have been. She asked why the Defendant had not responded to any of the Claimant’s letters, or appealed to POPLA. I explained that based on the prevailing advice at that time, the best course of action was to ignore, as PPCs hardly ever took anyone to court. That advice has now changed. She mentioned that her own son had a private ticket, which he was planning to ignore, and she had advised him to pay. I said don’t do either of those, get a POPLA appeal code and check the forums for how to win – I snuck in the fact that PE always lose when the appeal puts them to show genuine pre-estimate of loss. She thanked me for that information! Next, we moved on to the question of whether the charge could be considered a penalty, or at least not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Mr Matthews pointed to PE’s “commercial justification” arguments in their witness statement, which I countered by saying these were High Court cases between parties of equal standing, and therefore not applicable. The Judge said she wasn’t too sure about that, the law was the law and applied to individuals as well as rich corporations. She also looked at their quote from Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington, saying that she wasn’t familiar with the case, but it looked as if the claim had been brought on a different basis. I explained to her that CPS base their charges on agreed contractual terms, rather than breach of contract, so that case didn’t help the claimant at all. It then moved on to the BPA Code of Practice (19.5) which says that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and if it’s more than £100, operators must be able to justify the charge in advance. She interpreted this as meaning that the DfT had indirectly approved the figure of £100, so a detailed breakdown of loss would not be necessary. It wasn’t looking too hopeful at this point, but then I referred her to the recent PE v Sharma case at Brentford, and handed her a copy of the Judgment. She knew DJ Jenkins personally (he is the secretary of the Judges’ Association), and said that his ruling looked persuasive. Mr Matthews chipped in with a copy of the landowner contract with EuroGarages, which the Judge scrutinised thoroughly, but said that there was no explicit granting of rights by the landowner to the agent, and therefore she concurred with Jenkins’ view that PE had no standing to bring the claim in their own name. She announced that, because of this, the Claim stood dismissed. I asked for defendant’s costs, which she said would be capped at £90. Mr Matthews objected, saying that had the defendant used POPLA, she could have avoided a hearing. I countered that by saying that the Claimant would have been aware of the decision in the Brentford case relating to the same site, and could have discontinued the claim because of that. Claim dismissed. Costs of £90 awarded to Defendant. Bosh!

Is the company a BPA member on the AOS list otherwise the self tickets will be just paper. Then if they are BPA AOS you have to enforce them who is going to be the claimant? These things cause more trouble then they solve, its also amazing how many of these self tickets are issued.

Long winded? Have you ever seen a PE claim bundle?

Did it say on the original claim form in the POC area "Details to follow"?

Where there no POC's on the original claim? Unfortunately your defence is all mitigation, even if a Judge agreed with you they could not judge on it as they have to judge on points of law. You need to pick apart their POC part by part, but you need to get it there ASAP and hope the Judge allows it too be entered. You could argue that UKCPS have delayed.