They have actually been suspended for something from 2008 so its nothing to do with Roxburghe.

No you need to appeal to them not just ask for a POPLA appeal. Something like. Dear ANPR With reference to your parking charge notice No 123456 I wish to appeal the issue of this charge as the amount claimed is disproportionate to the alleged contravention. I do not believe the charge is a genuine estimate of any loss incurred. Yours Anybloodyid. Keep it short and sweet however be carefully ANPR reply with a disguised code hoping you miss the POPLA cut off time, they call it a last chance offer. Look out for a ten digit number somewhere on the reply. ANPR try to say that if anyone breaks the conditions of their sites they have to pay the landowner! Yah right OK.

I once questioned a retailer about the setting of times allowed, their reply was that as well as monitoring for overstayers the CCTV system produced a flow chart of customer traffic. They could then set the time to suit what most customers where spending at the store. No doubt during prayers the flow of traffic would increase, its a simple step to reduce the time allowed for the period of prayer. To be honest and I dont want to justify these parasitic parking companies, or the extortionate charges they claim, but if people are abusing the car parking by not being genuine customers then you can see why they are employed by retailers.

Thats the flaw with parking eyes car park management. The sign says customers only but they monitor it with in/out cctv. So they don't know who actually is a customer or not. By reducing the parking to an hour during prayer time they can simply lambast anyone with an invoice who overstays because the know people at prayer will do!

I give up, if you are going to spout garbage make sure its correct garbage. Please dont quote what I have said if you cant back it up. Show me where I said anything you have stated I said. What claims have I made? Also who is "my buddy"? Apart from my wife I don't have a buddy, however if you mean defending someone who is being wrongly accused becoming my buddy then maybe I have! So your advice to new posters regarding these charges is what exactly? Ignore them? Like these 1143 people did and received claims in a 3 month period? https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_cases_brought_by_parking Those days are past you have to be proactive now. I have been here since 2007 arguing the case against PPC's can you show me one post I have made to support them? Oh and the BAN emoticon can you tell me who has been banned from certain forums in the past. Let me see its not me is it?

If you call questioning your obsession with roxburghe/Sobell/GBP bad mouthing you then so be it! I suggest you do a bit of research as to what side I am on before you accuse me of being a Roxburghe spy again.

You will need to contact "M" and arrange a new id through "Q"

Why are the trust not entitled to your details, if they were not entitled then neither would Roxburghe be! If East Kent did not authorise the action then you have answered your own question why Roxburghe paid you. No need to scan the cheque I don't doubt your success.

Did you ever find out who requested your details from the DVLA? East Kent NHS are AOS members but I would wager they just passed your details to Roxburghe who then requested your details. Roxburghe can request details as long as it is for an AOS member. If Roxburghe are acting as agents payments would be made through them. The same as if you paid them they would pass it too East Kent less their fee.

Seeing County Durham and Darlington NHS are not on the BPA AOS don't see how they can obtain your details for a parking charge! Or do they use a PPC?

ICO Retaining personal data (Principle 5) "Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes" Now its been dealt with I cant see any reason they need to hold your data! http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/principle_5

Usually the Judges opinion. As the Thurlow appeal first judge said it was an agreed contract and it was not a penalty, second Judge (a more experienced judge) disagreed. Not everyone can afford to risk an appeal, or are given leave to appeal. We all know the forming of a contract is arguable. We all know the losses have to be real losses. We all know the charge can not be a penalty. However some Judges are agreeing the contract is made and fair. However some Judges are accepting that running costs are losses. However some Judges are agreeing that the charge is not a penalty but a contractually agreed amount, or a recoverable loss! Until we get a precedent set at a higher court then its all down to the experience of the Judge on the day. (Doesn't take much experience to be a district Judge)

There are plenty of won cases, sticking your head in the sand and saying you can defeat them easily in court from behind your keyboard is easy. Calling Kirbyinfurnesslad a troll is far from the truth. He like me has helped in defending cases and we have seen them lost! The £15 being Parking eye V Smith yes it was a £15 win for Parking Eye but do you think thats all it cost Smithy??? I know how much it cost him because I helped a little towards the cost! It was a lot more then £15! You can have the best defence in the world but if you cant deliver it its as much use as a concrete parachute! Telling people not to worry its an easy win in court is wrong. People have and will lose these cases! The days of claiming every win was set up case are well gone, Parking eye alone have issued hundreds if not thousands of claims post POFA. Unfortunately most fold before they enter the court room and pay. Some have lost the cases are there if you want to find them, a few have won, but telling people to ignore them and that a day in court is a simple matter is wrong. As an aside Parking eye lose money on every case they take too court, but it is worth it too them for propaganda purposes, they have the cash to do it with an after tax profit of nearly £4 million last year!

The claim is irrelevant as its been paid hasn't it? Post #17 If you are considering making them an offer, offer them the daily fee for parking times the number of tickets. Apcoa should apply to the DVLA for each issue @ £2.50 a time (If they did or not you could find out) An admin fee for each charge. You need to deal with Apcoa as DR+ will want to recover as much as they can because they work on commission.

Swagman's case above which I remember at the time is very different to most PPC cases. 1 Napier own the land. 2 It was a pay and display car park so there was an actual loss to the owner. 3 The defendants case was that he knew he had to pay and display but he was distracted and it took him 15 mins to get a ticket. (the Judge aint no fool he/she sussed they bought the ticket after the charge was issued) So they had a loss whatever it was for parking, then the DVLA fee, then several letters. £80 was probably top heavy, but given what the legal profession charge a DJ may think it reasonable. So overall Swagmans case is not the best to prove his point, as most of these charges are given in free car park at retail outlets. So there is never an initial loss to pursue. There are lots of case's we could look at some wins some loses, however given the surge in claims being made some PPC is going to pick on the wrong person, and its going to go to a higher court. Then hopefully they will be blown out of the water!

Swagman try VCS V Ibbotson case No 1SE09849 Judge had a very different view on what losses are! JUDGE MciLWAINE: That would depend upon how many notices are issued and at how many sites, over how long and what your income and expenditure is, and I am certainly not going to go into a detailed analysis of your company accounts. That is not my job. Mr Ibbotson says, if I find that your case is correct, that the amount I should award should reflect the loss of the space that he took, not his contribution to the running of your business. That has , I think, on any interpretation a degree of force, does it not? JUDGE MciLWAINE: I hear what you say about a contract. The point is about the amount of damages. The point that Mr Ibbotson has raised is that it is a penalty. You say, "No, it is a pre-agreed amount of loss". I have looked at the figures which you say are the pre-agreed amount of loss and a lot of them are , frankly , the costs of the business which are tax deductible or can be written off against profit, so I again come back to where is your loss , and we will come back to that in a minute.

DR+ have nothing to do with that claim from Apcoa! They cant issue a claim and they certainly can not withdraw it. Are you positive the claim and the DR+ payment are the same? If they are you need to contact Apcoa and make certain the claim is withdrawn. If you don't and its goes through you may well get a default judgement! Don't rely on what DR+ say, as all they are interested in is their commission for collecting. You also need to ensure any further action is taken against your partner not the keeper, or they could end up in a shed load of trouble. (assuming this is post POFA) Another problem you have is it is more difficult to defend multiple charges, you can claim you did not realise what the conditions of parking were when you first parked. However after receiving the first charge that argument has gone. Your then left with unfair contract and/or penalty defence. Judges have come down on both sides of this argument. Many do agree that the charge is an agreed contractual charge others have dismissed it, and others have given judgements for actual losses. If Apcoa really have 20 charges they should issue one claim for them all not individually.

That's a rather simplistic statement! Firstly the creditor (PPC) has to do everything right to comply with POFA. If they did and the RK gave them a serviceable name and address of the driver then the keepers liability ends. Any liability then becomes the drivers. If everything is followed to the letter they could issue a claim against the driver if the driver is revealed, or the keeper if the driver is unknown. POFA only gives them the option of pursuing the keeper, it does not add strength to any claim they make. They can not even get that statement correct the clause became effective in October 2012.

How do PE find the driver, if not through the keeper? Its for the keeper to supply a serviceable name and address of the driver, not for PE to find it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

I was not the driver defence has gone now! If you chose to ignore altogether then they can issue a claim against the keeper. POFA gives the keeper the opportunity to offer a serviceable name and address of the person who allegedly entered into the contract, the driver. It is no longer the keepers responsibility then. If you chose to ignore they can pursue the keeper for any alleged breach. What did you receive before the claim and in what time scale?

Do you think maybe a few of our primate relatives may have complained about being associated with PPC's???

Long term parking on motorway services have always been chargeable, I used to regularly get invoices from the actual operators for overnight parking when I used to have a haulage company. Or they had a man who used to go around with a receipt book and you paid him or not as you wished. Part of the lease agreement is they have to offer 2 hours free parking, after that they can make a charge. The way it was explained to me after I had a run in with Welcome Break is that Parking spy monitor using CCTV anything over two hours gets flagged up, vehicles that have paid which is retained by the operators and does contain a portion for discount for a meal or a drink. are then excluded from the list, the others are sent a NTK. Never ever paid Parking eye or anyone else, if the driver chose to pay I reimbursed them but most just ignored the man knocking on the cab!

Can we assume then that these companies don't claim such items as CCTV cameras, uniforms and signage as running costs in their annual return ????????

There is supposedly a claim being issued for this exact same contravention posted over on MSE but trying to get information from the poster is proving difficult. I would love to see the POC for this one, what on earth could they be suing for, for a few seconds/minutes stop?? VCS have now spread out into the adjoining industrial estate which was built on the site of the original airport. Same restrictions no stopping, VCS/Excel do seem well liked by Peel holdings??

If SRS did turn up to see Judge McLlaine the only people who would know what was said would be both parties,cant really see SRS publishing any details if he was tore a new backside, and cant really see the judge needing to let anyone else know what he said. Although it would be nice to know!