If this has been issued by the constabulary rather than the council then it is a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) not a PCN. You can fight it by pleading not guilty at a Magistrates' Court hearing. You will need reciepts/invoices/delivery notes or the like to prove that you were loading/unloading. A witness statement from the person you were delivering to may be enough. There is case law to support the loading/unloading defence. One point, as this is an FPN, you must take positive action as detailed on the FPN to request a court hearing - if you do nothing, you will be convicetec by default.

The Police Refornm Act 2002 allows chief officers of police to accredit other organisations or individuals with the power to stop a vehicle. However, as you rightly point out, this power does not extend to Scotland.

This is irrelevant. Your complaint to the BO is that LloydsTSB failed to honour the DDG unrtil pushed hard and even then had to be called again to take the promised action. This complaint does not directly involve Egg. If Egg fail to act as promised, then a further complaint to the BO may be in order as regards Egg.

I would just add that I hope none of the items is a safety item (eg hard hat, etc.) - which the employer is legally obliged to supply foc under H&S legislation.

The sequence of events is as follows: PCN issued Informal appeal to council Informal appeal rejected (almost invariably) Notice to Owner, which should give details of PATAS/NPAS for formal appeal If no formal appeal then Charge Certificate The council are supposed* to provide details and appeal forms with the NTO for a fromal appeal to the adjudicator service (PATAS for London, NPAS elsewhere) (*I will check elsewhere and post back as to whether this is stronger than 'supposed' ie required.)

You have a good point about PAs taking digital pictures. However parking adjudicators are not a court of law, so the same rules of evidence do not apply. As to digital speed cameras, these do not merely record but immediately transmit the image to the scamerati to issue the NIP. The whole process is automated and type-approved as a system. The type-approval is a strong argument as to the validity of the digital photographs and provides that the system is tamper-proof. IOW, digital photographs are not normally admissible (although the Magistrates may rule on this by individual case). However, presenting evidence to the Court (by way of a S20 certificate) that the system is type-approved by the Home Office as being tamper-proof makes such photographs admissible.

I think I see where the confusion arises. In the criminal court, system delivery by first class post is a rebuttable presumption. Proof of posting is seen as proof of delivery unless rebutted by statement under oath. It is not possible to rebut recorded or registered delivery - even if the delivery is not signed for. All comes down to the credibility of the witness in front of the magistrates

The rulling by His Honour Judge Jackson in the High Court in Barnet v Moses modifies this (by setting precedent) to add that there must be two dates. That of the notice and that of the contravention. Also Roger, a TW cannot, under any circumstances, issue a PCN. Only a PA can issue a PCN. TWs can only issue FPNs

Nonsense. Councils can enforce via CCTV also. The inportant point is that private car parking tickets are not enforcable at all

Even if you do go to Court (and lose), it is a non-recordable offence - like speeding. Like speeding, you cannot later say that you want your money back because you don't have a criminal record.

As I tried to tell you above; no, it is not unlawful. A PCN is a legal document notifying you of a penalty charge and is described in statute. It is a record of fact. It, in effect, says "pay up or you will be sued for the money". An FPN is simply an offer to avoid a Court appearance. FPNs can be issued for many reasons, not just parking. The FPN is not a record of fact - the officer's statement to the Court fulfills this purpose. A FPN says " You are being reported for an offence, if you wish to admit it and avoid Court, pay up. Otherwise your case will be heard in a Magistrates' Court ; your guilt and liability will be decided there"

No. There is no requirement in the Act for the colour to be noted. It therefore follows that it matters very little what is written there as far as the vaildity of the PCN is concerned.

It must have two separate dates on the PCN. One will be date of notice or date of issue The other date seen or date of contravention. If there are not two dates on the PCN, then it is void ab initio and unenforceable. The High Court ruling by His Honour Judge Jackson sets absolute precedent, both on the Council and PATAS

I strongly suggest that all of you read the Euro Car Parks thread further down. From this you will learn exactly how to deal with Excel Parking.

If it is on the boundary and the deeds are silent as to ownership, then normally it is a shared fence - end of. Note that, from the Land Registry documentation, it is impossible to define the boundart with an accuracy of 2". The thicknes of the line on the plan is usally a scale up to 6" or more. As has been said, the posts might give a clue, as it is normal to erect a fence 'to the boundary' and therefore the post would need to be inboard of this. Do not, however, be misled about the 'good' side of a fence - it is a myth that the 'good' side should face the neighbour

Sorry, they are not adding to the fine as there is no guarantee that there will be a fine to be added to (if that makes sense). Although not for this particular case, it is perfectly feasible that the driver can go (and be found) not guilty. There is no penalty, and thus no penalty to be added to. What the leasing company is doing, is making an administrative (not a penalty) charge for complying with the law (ie responding to the first S172 demand). It is the fault of the driver's company for agreeing to this charge in the contract. It should have been struck out before signature. The leasing company cannot withhold the service (without being prosecuted for a criminal offence) so why agree to pay for it?

Is this a PCN issued under the RTA1991 (which it must state on the ticket) on behalf of the local council or is this a private ticket. If the former, then you need to review the threads regarding dates, etc. If private, despite their threats, it is unenforceable against the RK - see the Euro Cark Park threads - which are on exactly the same basis

The leasing company are not directly adding to the charge since they do not pay the £60. They are making a charge to fill out the police form to name the company as the hirer. The company then gets its own NIP/S172 to name the driver and ultimately the driver will get his/her own NIP/S172 to 'fess up. Only this last one is used for prosecution. However, for parking tickets, most leasing companies do pay (because ultimately the RK is liable) and pass the charge on with an added admin charge.

Then go back and challenge the council to prove the grounds for removing the benefit etc. A simple accusation from the Benefit Agency isn't enough - the Council would have to have their own proof . However, you do need to be aware that this may reopen the whole can of worms with the Benefit Agency.

I would respectfully suggest that 99% of companies who habd out company cars have the ability to deduct charges for wages as a condition of having a company car - which you sign when ordering the car. Thus the deduction from wages is perfectly lawful. Some companies further add their own admin charges on top. If your company is VAT registered, then they will be reclaiming the VAT element as an input tax - so they should only charge you £20. If they are re-charging the VAT to you then you should demand a VAT reciept as your legal right. One company I worked for found this too complicated to manage (as they can't simply put it through as a salary deduction - they have to have a VAT invoice) so they stopped recharging these costs. It is iniquitous that the leasing company can charge for doing that which they are required to do by law. Unfortunately, you cannot challenge this an an unlawful penalty as their contract is not with you, but with your company.

Right. For a PCN placed on the vehicle (or handed tot he driver) Date of Issue and Date of Notice are effectively the same thing. They are not the same thing for PCNs arising from CCTV that are mailed out. What is important about the dates on a PCN is that as well as the date of issue/notice there must be a separate Date Seen or Date of Contravention. Both dates must be on the PCN, not on the tear-off slip

As Demon said, I was emphasising that you are not entitled to a refund. You paid and in doing so admitted liability. The court will not (cannot) order a refund. However, following Judge Jackson's High Court ruling (which is binding on all decriminalised council enforcement) the PCN that you recieved is fatally flawed and therefore ab initio, void. You can therefore claim restitution of the money paid for an unlawful demand. Refund and restitution are very different things

Firstly, this is private parking, not Council nor Police; as such an enforcement can only take place under contract law - not statute. Secondly, only statute allows the imposition of a penalty for parking - so no way should they use the phrase "Parking Penalty Notice" - this is unlawful. Thirdly, only statute allows the imposition of fines - so no way should they be referring a fine - this is unlawful. For any enforcement of a charge, there must be a contract is force. It is purported (and there is case law) that the DRIVER implied accepts the contract by parking, with reference to any signs in the cae aprks. the contract cannot be formed by the issue of the ticket as there is no way for the drive to accept. So the tick boxes on the ticket are irrelevant - it is what is on the car park signs that matter. Lastly, they can only discover who the registered keeper is from the DVLA. They have no contract with the RK, only possibly with the driver. The RK has no legal obligation to inform them of who the driver was (unlike crimial offences). The RK (unless he/she was also the driver) cannot have formed any contract and consequently cannot be liable for any penalty

The idea of taking a picture after issuing is to provide evidence that the ticket was issued correctly and affixed to the vehicle - not necessarily to provide evidence of the parking conravention. Are the tickets not council-issued? If so, then what are TWs doing there; they should be PAs.

An FPN for parking is issued by a Police Offcier or Police Traffic Warden. There are no "two dates" issues etc. This is because the FPN is not used in the same way. An FPN is an invitation to pay up a fixed amount to settle the matter instead of going to the Magistrates' Court for a hearing over this alleged criminal offence. The veracity of any information will relate to the Officer/Warden's testimony in Court. Unlike PCNs, if you wish to fight an FPN, you do so via the normal criminal courts - you can, in theory, appeal all the way to the Lords. The main negative, is that if yyou want to challemge an FPN, then you must take positive action as detailed on the ticket. If you do nothing, there is a default convict