Good afternoon, Am hoping someone can offer me some advice with regard to NE Parking Ltd and whether or not I should pay not 1 but 2 PCN's issued within 24 hours whilst parked in the same parking spot over August Bank Holiday weekend in August. Arrived in Blackpool having booked a hotel to stay the evening with my partner and 2 children on the evening of Sunday 27th August. I was unaware that there was limited parking at the hotel and upon checking in at 18:10 I was informed that I would need to use one of the car parks situated nearby at a cost of £12 for 24 hours. I then made the decision to park my car (at approx 18:15) on one of the few available spaces at one of the NE Parking Ltd's car parks, as it was closer than were I had initially left my car prior to checking in. I checked the payment meter and discovered that there was no facility to pay by card and it would only accept coins, to which neither me or my partner had at the time. The mistake I then made was deciding to leave my car without a ticket for a short period of time whilst I carried our bags into the hotel room and then went off in search of a cash machine or shop to get the required change for the parking meter. I managed to purchase a ticket at 18:36 only to find that within 21 minutes of leaving my car I had been issued a PCN for failing to display a valid ticket. Great! I then took the PCN off my windscreen and left it in my car with the ticket I had just purchased on my dashboard, as there was very little I could do now with it being a Sunday evening and upon trying to contact the company managed to speak with a mobile supervisor based in Hartlepool! I left my car parked overnight and returned to it around 3pm the following day to set off for the journey home. Arrived to find another PCN had been issued for failing to display a valid ticket but unfortunately the ticket had blown off from my dashboard to the side of my front passenger seat which was probably due to strong winds which Blackpool had the previous evening and day. When I got home I e-mailed a detailed letter of appeal to the company outlining my circumstances with photographic evidence of the ticket I had purchased plus receipts of my check in time at the hotel and from my purchase to get cashback from the shop. I respectfully requested that the 2nd PCN issue be cancelled due to the fact I had already been issued one and that I could prove I had purchased a valid ticket. I also requested that the 1st PCN be reduced to an administrative charge due to being parked for 21 minutes without a valid ticket. I have today received 2 letters from NE Parking advising that both PCN's were in fact issued correctly and that I was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of parking. Firstly, should I pay them for both PCN's? Secondly, can a second PCN be issued if one has already been done? Thirdly, if I appeal to the IAS as suggested by them using the same letter and evidence offered, would it help to get the PCN's cancelled or reduced? I accept begrudgingly that the first PCN I may struggle to quash, as I have stayed longer than the grace period (heard it is 10 mins) but it just seems as though I have been a victim of an over zealous parking attendant who has watched me on CCTV then very quickly issued the PCN before I returned with my ticket. The second PCN I feel really strongly about not paying because I can prove I have purchased a valid ticket but being parked near a sea front with strong winds and not being able to stick the ticket to my windscreen has made it look as though I haven't paid and displayed. Thanks very much in advance for any opinions or advice that may be offered regarding this issue. Carl

Hi there! I would like to ask for some advice. I found a similar case (same place, same issue) to mine in this forum and would like to know what was the outcome. Or I'm looking for some solution from someone more clever than me. I parked my car in the St Stephens car park in Trowbridge end of May. I purchased my free three hours ticket (still have the ticket) and put on the dashboard in a visible place. Shutting the door moved the ticket further down and fell under the windscreen wiper (not fully visible, but definitely there). I had an hour meeting at Nandos (I'm a manager there) and when I was leaving I realised I got the yellow bag with a parking charge. I appealed straight away. UKPC rejection response came three weeks later. I appealed with POPLA risking my parking charge to be £100. POPLA closed the case today with another rejection. Im a manager at Nandos, work in Trowbridge restaurant quite often. I am fully aware of the rules of that particular car park. My girlfriend is from Trowbridge, we visit the cinema and town shops and we always use this carpark. Why wouldn't I purchase a free ticket and risk a parking charge if I know the rules? I could pay the £100, but I don't think I have been treated fairly in this case. I just don't feel I did break the rules of that car park. Don't think it's okay. My question is: - What shall I do next? - Do I need to be worried if I decide not to pay? - How likely is me to go to court? thanks for the help, it means a lot

Hi All Firstly, a massive thanks in advance for any advice that can be given. I feel a little bit lost in the law and unfortunately can't afford a lawyer so it's great to have communities like this to come to. My situation below: I live in a flat that shares it's car park with the rest of the block. The buildings management has employed ParkDirectUK to manage the car park and they require parking permits to be displayed. ParkDirect recently gave me a £100 parking charge as I forgot to display my parking permit. I contacted them with evidence of my residency and my parking permit but they stated that this is irrelevant as at the time my car did not have a permit. I then contacted the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) and they have rejected my appeal on the same basis. The question I have for the community is should I still refuse to pay and potentially go to court. Where does the law tend to land on cases like this? The full case (copied from my IAS appeal) is detailed below: ************************* ************************* ********* My Appeal Hello On the day I received my fine I forgot to put my parking permit in the window of my car. (Although in the pictures ParkDirectUK sent me you can see it in the holder in between the two seats). I am appealing this fine on the basis that I am a resident at the property and have the right to park there. You will find attached an image of my Parking Permit and the Visitor Parking Permit that belongs to my flat. In addition, I have attached an image which contains the relevant section of my lease (section 4) that states I have the right "to use the common parts". I have confirmed with Building Management that the car park is owned by the building I reside in and not by ParkDirectUK. I can also confirm that no where in my lease does it state I must display any form of permit to use the land. In addition, the details of my car had been submitted to ParkDirectUK and so they were aware of my right to park there. Thank you for your time Matt Section 4 of my lease: The right in common with the landlord the other tenants of the Building and all other persons entitled to the like right at all times and for all purposes in connection with the permitted use of the Property to use the Common Parts and all those pathways and accessways leading to and from the Property for the purposes of access to and egres from the Property subject to any rules and regulations for their common use that the Landlord may from time to time consider necessary ************************* ************************* ******* Operator's Prima Facie Case The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 01/07/2018 10:14:23. The operator reported that... The appellant was the driver. A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle. The ticket was issued on 23/05/2018. The charge is based in Contract. The operator made the following comments... This PCN was issued because the vehicle was found to be parked in a permit holders ONLY area and failed to display a valid parking permit. Whilst we do sympathise with the appeallants circumstances at the time of the contravention, there are nonetheless numerous warning signs displayed in various locations around the site including the sign in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the vehicle to ensure all approaching motorists are fully aware of the restrictions that are in force highlighting the need to display a valid permit in order to utilise the premises. We would now like to refer the appeallant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 64, which looks at what a reasonable person would consider fair. The myriad number of signs are sufficiently lit, are in an intelligible language and are prominent to draw the attention of a reasonable consumer. As such, a reasonable consumer would have acknowledged these signs. It can never be used as a defence in contract law to state that one did not see/read the terms and conditions (warning signs) once it has been established that the existence of those terms and conditions (warning signs) have been reasonably advertised. All of our warning signs have been audited and approved by the IPC who have deemed their location and content sufficient to disseminate all drivers of the restrictions in force. The signage at this location clearly connotes to all motorists the level of charges that were in force and you had the option to park elsewhere if you felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. By parking on site, it confirms that they agreed to park in accordance with the perspicuously displayed terms and conditions – including the level of the parking charge if it arose. The warning signs clearly state that vehicles must clearly display a valid parking permit fully within the windscreen and comply with all conditions on the permit. We have reviewed the time and date stamped photographic evidence taken at the time your vehicle was issued with a PCN and we can confirm that no permit was on display. As no valid parking permit was displayed the vehicle was indeed parked in DIRECT BREACH of the terms of parking as set out on the warning signs - these terms are clear and do not make any exceptions. Furthermore, all of our warning signs prominently displayed a 24 hour customer service telephone number which they could have called in the event of any uncertainty, and had they called the number they would have been advised which steps to take in order to avoid receiving a PCN. We must remind you that it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that they actively observe and adhere to the parking restrictions in force when parking on PRIVATE PROPERTY and we would advise that they do so in the future so as to prevent any further PCN’s being issued. The appellant has provided a copy of their lease which does give them the right to use the common parts however, it clearly states "subject to any rules and regulations for their common use that the landlord from time to time consider necessary". The landlord has implemented parking regulations and the driver is aware that the permit must be displayed in accordance with the terms of the use of the permit as stated on the reverse of the permit and the terms as stated on the warning signs. ************************* ************************* My Response The appellant made their response on 01/07/2018 15:57:50. The landlord has implemented the parking charges for the purpose of deterring non-residents from parking in order to ensure that residents (like myself) have the ability to park when required. The purpose of a parking charge is to recover the losses that the landowner incurred for the space not being available. I am a resident and have the right to park. Therefore there was no loss, in any sense, incurred by the landlord or the residents by my parking there. Therefore I would ask a justification for the excessive £100 fine. ************************* ************************* **** Adjudicator's Decision The adjudicator made their decision on 12/07/2018 15:37:31. It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles. The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option. The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402 I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant’s circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. ************************* ************************* ****** Thank you all for any advice you can give. It is very much appreciated

Afternoon, Am wondering if you could look at this please - I sent a generic letter through "Which" website and got various replies from RBS - saying on some no PPI was included, others I had already claimed back but I got these 3 replies (Wife & I) rejecting our claim. Was wondering if worth pursuing with a SAR etc. I had to convert a pdf file to word so apologies for how it looks - have highlighted part I thought strange, I needed to have PPI for a minimum of 4 years on my mortgage. RBS PPI Rejection.doc

I had a capital one Platinum card on which i paid PPI - i used the templates from the Martin Lewis pages to complain was rejected on the grounds that when I transferred a balance to this card in march 2000 i ticked a box to request PPI. They attached a photocopy of the said form showing this box 'ticked' - however I had had the card for a couple of years before transferring this balance and had not had PPI (as far as I am aware but I don't have records going back to those dates) and would not therefore have specifically requested this on a balance transfer. Their argument is that I selected it, the information was there and I had a 30 day cooling off period in which to cancel it. Unfortunately this decision was also upheld by the ombudsman. I am aware that I can not revisit this although I am annoyed about this I phoned them yesterday to enquire about the Plevin vs Paragon case to raise a claim for overpaid commission and was told by their representative that I would have had a letter if I qualified. Is there any way to find out what rate of commission Capital One was receiving and how do I go about making a claim in the event it was greater than 50%?

Hi there I have received a hand delivered envelope (I haven't signed for it, don't know if that makes any difference) containing a Simple Procedure Notice of Claim by Arrow Global for an Aqua credit card debt. I have never received one of these before and I am not entirely sure what it is. Is this a fishing expedition by Arrow to pressure me to respond - there are no court stamps on the letter or date to attend court. A Time to Pay application has been included. The amount they are asking for is more than the credit limit as on the card, I assume the balance is made up of fees/late payment charges. If I ignore it what will happen - is it likely to proceed to court? The balance is for £737.00. I took out the credit card in November 2014, Arrow say they purchased the debt from Aqua in August 2016 and that they have sent letters on 2 occasions in May 2017 to which they had no response - I do not recall ever receiving these letters. I did make repayments to the card, but same old story, I got into financial difficulty, they started adding on late payment fees and it all snowballed from there. I am unemployed at the moment and not claiming benefit as my live in partner works full time. I do not receive any tax credits, just child benefit for 1 child. Can anyone help me as I don't really know what to do here. I have until 14/09/2017 to respond. I have been reading the forums but there is so much information on there and I don't know where to start. Thank you.

Hi there, I was really hoping for some help and advise on whether there is any way forward with this complaint. I complained to Canada Square about an egg credit card taken out in March 2001. I know that I did not opt in to take PPI - that the box was pre ticked, as I was also advised on the phone that the box had to be pre ticked to complete the application when I questioned it. They rejected my complaint as my personal circumstances meant I had no cover (significant sick pay or savings etc). I don't see how this is relevant. I took it to FOS and they rejected my complaint. I have questioned it and they say their records show it was opt in at this time. But I know this isn't true. Can anyone give any advice on how to proceed with this?

I received 2 parking charge notices from Excel Parking for alleged contraventions of their conditions. The first was for parking on 15/05/2017 and the PCN issue date was 06/06/2017 the second was for parking on 17/5/2017 and the PCN issue date was 05/06/2017. There is absolutely no question that the appropriate tickets were purchased, displayed correctly and we did not overstay their duration. On one occasion my partner purchased the ticket and the other I did, so it would be doubtful if we inputted the wrong registration number although as the last letter of our registration is O it may have been possible that we both inputted a 0 (zero) I appealed these PCN’s (and may have implicated the driver i.e. stating the purchaser of the ticket) but they have both been rejected on the basis that no similar registration numbers were found in their system at that time. Their ‘independent’ appeals service is IAS who I believe from internet searches are an ‘in house’ company which rarely uphold appeals. I have now requested logs from the machine as I have now discovered (from another forum) that other people have had the same issue during that period in May 2017. I now have only a few days until the 14 day dead line for appeals is up before they increase the charge from £60 to £100 for each notice. If I can get any help on this forum which will help me sort this situation I will happily donate half the saving i.e. £60 to the forum fund.

I am really new to this but I need some help with a rejected PPI claim from Capital One. I initially had no idea I had PPI but thought id make a claim and see. Capital One responded to say I had PPI and were investigating to see whether it was mis-sold. I then received a letter today to state that my PPI was rejected because I apparently agreed to it via a telephone call to activate my card. It then goes on to state that they are unable to locate a recording of the telephone call however at the time I met the eligibility criteria of the PPI. Can someone please advise me on what I should do next? How can they prove that it was not mis-sold if they do not have the telephone conversation to prove it? They have stated their decision is final but I feel that the case has been unfairly judged as there is no evidence to support their case. Should I send it to Ombudsman? however, I have read that always agree with the banks. Any advice I can get on this would be really appreciated. Thank you

Summary : I had been to a Car park which is adjacent to Rail station to drop by wife. There were road construction, and for safety reason I decided to pull the car into a Car park, and left the site in less than a minute. Exactly, at the same time, I been again to the car park, and left the site in less than a minute. The Car park has issued a Parking charge notice by picking up images of entry on day1 and exit on day2, claiming that my car was parked for 23 hours and 59 minutes and did not pay the parking charges. Parking Charge Notice issued by private car park accordance with the BPA code of practice 1 Date of the infringement - 1st dec 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10th Jan (after 40 days of offence) 3 Date received - 13th Jan 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] no - it was accordance with the BPA code of practice 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes - Entry image of Day1 and Exit image of Day 2 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] Y – I said the fact as what happened. And also acknowledged that I was the Driver. Have you had a response? The response dated 25 Jan was very simple - Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advice your appeal has been unsuccessful on this occassion 7 Who is the parking company? APOCA 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Slough East Car Park, Slough For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. – Yes POPLA. I appealed with Popla on 8th Feb, and they have rejected on 8th Mar saying “In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association (BPA) audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we consider the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. Based on the evidence provided, I can only see one entrance and one exit for vehicle registration X. Therefore, in this case I conclude that the charge was issued correctly.” In addition I’ve raised the following points: “I gather that the Parking Charge Notice issued to me on 10th Jan (Notice to Keeper) does not comply the following: 1. The period of parking to which the notice relates to (POFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2) (a) ), is missing from the Parking charge notice issued on 10th Jan, later this information was provided to me in the rejection letter 2. The deadlines by which the Notice to Keeper must be served, which differ depending on whether or not a Notice to Driver was issued first (paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5)) – the Parking charge notice was issued to me (Notice to Keeper) after 40 days. No notice was issued at the site. 3. Automatic number plate recognition (APNR) - Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. In this instance, basic checks are missing.” they responded saying - I note the appellant’s comments however, the appellant has admitted to being the driver of the vehicle on the day in question. As such, the operator does not have to rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper. Therefore, I do not need to consider whether the operator has met the requirements of PoFA 2012. I also mentioned that “In case, my appeal is rejected then it will be helpful if I can be provided with the evidence that my car was in the car park for the duration mentioned in the appeal rejection letter, the car has not left the car park on 1st Dec and entered again on 2nd Dec. There are several cameras at the site to make the car secure that can help to produce more evidence.” - No response I did attached my credit card statement that contains a transaction dated 1st dec that I been to Tesco Petrol station at Hayes around 8:20am but unfortunately, there is no time in the statement. in addition I attached the rail ticket credit card payment ticket for both the days, but again it was my unfortunate that the print on those tickets is missing the time of transaction. I picked my wife and her colleague from the Ealing broadway station on the same evening and can provide witness statement / contact details for verification. POPLA ignored all the evidence I attached to the appeal. It is very disappointing to see that these companies are making individual life so miserable, I've already spent more than a week since 13th Jan to understand and educate myself so that I can prove that I did not park. I would like to check is there anyway I can raise this complaint with APOCA, POPLA, ISPA and BPA. also, what else should I do so that they don't send me all those unwanted claim letters. It will really appreciable for your suggestions and thank you in advance.

Hello, I, unknowingly, received a PCN from Lambeth council in April 2016 for parking my motorbike in a permit holders only bay. I moved address a couple of weeks later (and then my motorbike got stolen!). All correspondence from Lambeth council was to my old address, where my motorbike was registered. I did not update the registration address with DVLA as the vehicle was no longer in my possession. As I was no longer living at the old address, I did not receive any of the letters from Lambeth council regarding the PCN. It was only until Jan 2017 when I received a letter (to my new address) from Marstons Bailiffs saying that I had an outstanding parking fine and they were threatening to seize my property if I didn't pay. I appealed to the TEC with forms TE7 and TE9, explaining that the reason for the out of time appeal was because I never received any letters from Lambeth Council and only knew of the PCN when Marston's contacted me at my new address. Lambeth council confirmed that they were writing to me at my old address. I also said that because it was dark when I returned to my motorbike and the PCN was attached to my motorbike at the rear next to the wheel, I didn't see it as it wasn't clearly and obviously placed on my motorbike. The PCN must have fallen off as I was riding the motorbike. I also attached a copy of an electricity statement confirming I was living at my new address at the time of when any letters from Lambeth would have been sent to me regarding the PCN. The TE7 and TE9 applications have been rejected. The letter from them says “the response from the local authority with regards to your out of time application should have already been served to you”. I have not received this. I have 14 days (as of 18th Feb) to file the N244, however there are fees of £255, or £100 for a review without a hearing. Given it is now 2nd March, I have only 2 more days within the time frame to appeal. Can anyone please advise on what I need to do? I am willing to pay the PCN to the value of what I would have needed to pay had I known about it in the first place (£60). Thank you in advanced Nick

Hi there I have a question relating to a loan that I took in 2004 through Zenith Windows to install double glazing. But Zenith windows went into administration in 2010 I believe. Loan amount 5K. It is now paid off. How do I go about getting the PPI back from them and the unfair charges. Can anyone help please? Many thanks and much appreciated.

we bought a car just before xmas within days it developed faults, we exercised our right to reject in writing to the garage at beginning of year and you guessed it they are ignoring us. we have gotten trading standards involved as they think there may be mis-represented laws they have broken such as saying it has warranty and it doesn;t and that there is service history which has never been received and failing to disclose where it came from when asked. this will not get us our money back so we are going down the route of S75 with credit card company only 2000 was put on card and remainder paid in cash a total of 17500 in all. What I wanted to know if anyone else has been successful in getting their money back through S75 and if so what happens to the car if we do prove successful and get our money back. At the moment the big hunk of junk us blocking my driveway as we had to sorn it get tax back this is now in the second month and doing my head in. any help. advice or experiences welcomed. If the credit card company pay up then effectively the car is now theirs, is that right, will they come and collect it. thanks tracey

I have a valuation tribunal upcoming, and I have received the following correspondence. The issue is that the council will not grant the 1st month discount because the previous occupiers used up this discount. As we are first time buyers and didn't actually move in till at least a month later I was hoping the 1st months council tax would be discounted 100%. However this is not the case. Is there anything that I can backup this case with as it's basically their legislation against what I think I should be entitled to. Issues in Dispute The dispute concerns the application of the 100% discount for one month for properties that are unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for the period 20 June 2016 to 20 July 2016. Decision Sought The decision we seek from the Tribunal is that the appeal is dismissed based on the reasons set out below. Reasons for Decision The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings)(England) (Amendment) Order 2012 omitted the exemption Class C of the Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992, whereby properties that were both unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for a period not exceed six months were exempt from Council Tax. Billing Authorities were then able to prescribe classes of empty dwellings, and the level of discount applicable under Section 11 of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 referred to Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (appendix 10) North West Leicestershire District Council made the decision that for properties that were both unoccupied and substantially unfurnished, there would be a one month 100% discount from Council Tax from the date the property became such, after which there would be a 0% discount (appendix 11 & 12) The Council were notified by the previous owners that the property had become both unoccupied and substantially unfurnished more than a month prior to Mr Buyers purchase of the property. The previous owners contacted the Council as and when changes occurred, and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to dispute the information provided by them. In line with North West Leicestershire District Council’s local discount scheme, the property had been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than a month prior to 20 June 2016, therefore no discount is applicable for the period 20 June 2016 to 20 July 2016. The Tribunal is asked to dismiss the appeal on the grounds set out above.

Hi everyone I sent a claim to POPLA and I got the decision on the 12th September. I will post the decision below, I just want to know if there's anything more I can do or should I just pay it. Thanks Andrew Decision: Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. Assessor summary of your case The appellant’s case is that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator. The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site. The appellant further states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915. Assessor supporting rational for decision Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued are done so out of the driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Upon review of the information provided in relation to this appeal, I am not satisfied that the driver has been identified. As such, I must consider whether the operator has met the strict requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), in order to transfer liability from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper. After reviewing the notice to keeper against the relevant sections set out in PoFA, I am satisfied that the operator has complied with PoFA. As a result, the keeper is now liable for the charge. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, registration number 0000000, entering the car park at 12:19, and exiting at 15:20, totalling a stay of three hours. The operator states that it has issued the PCN as the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. The appellant states that there is no contract between the landowner and the parking operator. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided evidence of the contract it holds with the landowner, confirming that an agreement has been in place effective from the 4th January 2016 for a period of 36 months. As the PCN was issued on the 25th May 2016, I am satisfied that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention. The appellant advises that no contract could be formed with the driver due to inadequate signage, and that the keeper does not believe the operator has sufficient permission to erect signage at the site. When parking on private land, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “2 Hour Free Stay: If you want to stay longer, parking tariffs then apply and a ticket must be purchased: Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map establishing the locality of the 61 signs in place throughout the car park. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. While I acknowledge the appellant has concerns regarding planning permission to erect signage, I do not consider this necessary to the particular case. When looking at appeals, POPLA must consider whether the motorist complied with the terms and conditions of the car park, and whether the PCN was issued correctly. The appellant states that the charge requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss with reference to Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915. The case of Dunlop-v-New Garage and Motor co 1915 was an appeal heard in the House of Lords over one hundred years ago. As such, I have not considered this case to be relevant, as the precedent set in regards to parking charges has been reviewed more recently by the Supreme Court, in the case of ParkingEye-v-Beavis. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices”. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Upon consideration of the evidence, the driver has remained in excess of the free stay period, and failed to purchase time thereafter. As such, the driver failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. The operator has complied with PoFA, and the keeper is now liable for the charge. Based on the evidence provided, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

I placed an order with Parcel2go via MyHermes on 20th July. I dispatched the small item on economy service which I would assume 3-5 days max. My Ebay customer started ranting and set up an issue that he didnt receive the item after 5 working days. I tracked it and sent a copy to him and contacted company that assured my parcel would be delivered within 24hrs. after 10 days my customer refused to accept the parcel in annoyance 1st August. I assumed the parcel would be returned to me. I checked yesterday and it states that its been signed for. This is now the issue I have contacted Parcel2go and they want me to pay again to have the parcel returned to myself???? In the meanwhile Ebay have sided with the customer and refunded the item and the postage however I am left is debt now as the tracking states - endless excuses why it wasn't delivered. I have have now had money withdrawn out of my account and the parcel is in the hands of someone who can prob resell the item - surely this is illegal practice as it hasnt been delivered. Is it worth complaining and threaten with small claims?

After discovering that I had PPI attached to an old Halifax mortgage, I put in a claim for miss selling. Today I had a telephone call from the Halifax in connection with another PPI with them that I knew nothing about. I ventured to enquired about my Mortgage PPI claim and they said that a letter was sent out to me on the 12th July 2016 explaining everything. Today is the 25th July 2016 and I have NOT received any such letter. The lady on the phone then read me the contents of the said letter outlining the reasons for the decline of the PPI. The ones that stood out were :- You had NO savings to support your mortgage payments in the event of sickness or redundancy. You needed PPI to cover sickness, redundancy etc. When the aforesaid "sale" took place I had been in my present employment with Royal Mail for 9 years and continued to work for them for a further 10 years until my retirement. (19 years in total). It doesn't take a genius to work out that a letter sent on the 12th of the month does not take 13 days to arrive at its destination even if it was 2nd class. This letter is still to arrive. At the time of the sale I had cover for sickness (6 months full pay, 6 months half pay) redundancy (12 months pay) and also death in service through my Royal Mail Pension. As far as I was concerned I DIDNT need PPI, being covered through my employment. I have the original paperwork in connection with this PPI and in my Personal financial Report it states :- No recommendations nee4ded From the information you gave me it seems you already have plans in place to meet the following or no need in the particular area * Protecting your financial security * Protecting for critical illness over and above the mortgage debt * Saving for the future * Investing your capital I had a secure job with Royal Mail and a statutory pension plan in place for my retirement which included a payment for death in service. Sick pay and redundancy pay. Why did I "NEED" PPI Was the Halifax right to decline my PPI claim. I understand that it was underwritten by Lloyds. Any information greatly accepted. Thank you

Hiya all, Personally I think that the fine I've received is absolutely unjustifiable on the grounds that it was completely unclear, even clear in the opposite way, that this spot was restricted- and every colleague/friend/family member I've consulted has agreed. However I'd like to sense check that before I waste any more time dealing with the glacial process of formally appealing it now that the informal one has failed. I was parked at the end of a cul de sac, which had no signage about parking. There were double yellow lines alone the sides of the street, but they appear to me to visibly not cover the end of the street (indeed everyone else has come to this idea, as the end of this street is regularly full of cars parked at the end). As the PCN and the rejection of my informal appeal only mentioned double yellow lines, It can't be anything else. Hopefully everyone can see my attachments; the first two less grainy photos are some of the ones I took to demonstrate the situation, which I sent along with my informal appeal. Long dead end street, no obvious double yellow lines at the end, no signage banning parking The third grainy photo is to me the most damning photo they sent as evidence. Interestingly the white paint splodge of no clear meaning right next to my car that you can see in my photos looks as if it could be a double yellow line due to the angle of his photo. I'm sure that this was absolutely a coincidence and I have absolute faith in the traffic wardens honesty and integrity. Only a cynical person would suggest that he's deliberately misrepresented the situation. So what do people think? I'm currently waiting until the notice to owner arrives and plan to make a formal appeal, but if people think I was actually in the wrong then I'd rather not waste everyones time. additionaly I'd be grateful if anyone could answer the following: Can I make a formal appeal directly even though I'm not the registered owner of the vehicle? The "Notice to owner" apparently has to go to the owner, is there a limit on what representation I can make by myself?

I am so angry that FoS have listened to what Natiowide have said about timescales and i cannot claim !! There must be a way to do so, as i NEVER need any form of PPI. the reply from FOS was : i feel the below i totally unfair as u did not know i had ppi on the card until i found an old statement last year. also nationwide did not tell me of any time-scales-limits , i feel they have used dirty tricks. there must be a way for me to make a claim as i am disgusted they have basically said "tough" Dear Mr xxxxxxx Thank you for your email dated 10 February 2016. I have attempted to contact you on numerous occasions to discuss the complaint with you, however I have been unsuccessful. I apologise that you feel this way, however under the dispute resolution rules set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, businesses are entitled to not consent to us looking at a complaint on six and three and as a service we have to consider this before we can proceed to look at the merits. In your case Nationwide has not consented into us looking into your complaint, therefore we have to look at whether it’s been more than six years since the PPI policy was sold and more than three years since the you became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that you had cause to complain. We are an impartial service and have consider evidence provided by both you and the business in order to reach a fair outcome. Our general approach is that statements clearing setting out PPI ought reasonably to have made the consumer aware that PPI was added to their account. In your case, your monthly statements would have shown that you were paying for insurance. Whilst I understand you may not have checked every single statement, it would have been clear from the statement that you were paying some sort of insurance which would have been enough to give you cause to question what it was you were paying and complain. I appreciate that you have told us that you were not aware that there was a timescale to make a complaint and Nationwide never informed you of this, however they are not required to do so. I have to consider that it is reasonable to assume that you should reasonably have known you had cause to complain more than three years before you did – so unfortunately your complaint falls outside the three-year time scale as well and I remain of the view that the complaint could have been referred to us within time. If there’s anything else that you think we need to consider that relates specifically to reasons why your complaint was made outside of these timescales, please let us know within 21 days. We’ll then look at things again taking into account what you send us - but unless you have any new information it is unlikely that our view will change. Should you request for an ombudsman to make a decision on your complaint, the ombudsman will not be considering your complaint, but rather whether we can look into the complaint any further. I am sorry that we were not able to help you more on this occasion. Yours sincerely Mena Salih Financial Ombudsman Service 0203 069 6556

Dear All, I am hoping someone could assist my wife here with her rejected Santander for a Debenhams Store card. Herself and her mother, where in the store at the same time and both took out a newly offered card at the same time, and spent near the same amount and never again used it since, All they needed was some wedding stuff at the time., Now a month ago or so Santander got intouch with her mother out of the blue and said "hey we owe you some money" and she got £2500. The wife wrote off to them, and i think they have just fobbed her off, I have uploaded their reply and can be seen below. It would be fantastic if anyone can let me know if we can turn this around and put it back in our favour.. I feel she is being mistreated and fobbed off with a standard letter Regards PDF file now attached, Many Thanks santander.pdf

Hello, I started a PPI claim from MBNA (credit card) PPI was automatically added, The card started about 1995 (I was about 20) still used today. I have been told by the FOS (via a ppi claim company) that MBNA has said a time bar applies to my claim as I received statements and the ppi would have been on them. Well sure it was every one would have who had PPI. I understand this is fair enough and there will be people saying this is my fault but I did not even know I had PPI (hence miss sold) and this was my first credit card when I was young and obviously a lot went on this card to get me by in the early years, Also to be honest I never checked every transaction I simply look at the amounts and mentally check the figures I still do the same today with all my accounts. I am extremely tied up from 6am until around 8pm working and paying lots of tax... lol I have read about the 6 and 3 rule and also a lot of posts revolving around this matter, I feel this is a loop hole at which all banks can refuse PPI on maybe 9 out of 10 requests, so is this PPI coming to an end and shafting the late claimers who have only heard about PPI reclaiming on the media ?. I feel let down by the FOS at the moment as if PPI is Fraudulently or secretly added is does not matter when it was? I have re submitted/escalated to the FOS stating I was not aware of the PPI until my first phone call to MBNA within the last 2 years and asked on the phone what is this payment for ? Has anyone else had this issue and had a resolve ? Thankyou

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503678/How-new-CD-player-torpedo-car-insurance-firms-refusing-pay-motorists-claims-basic-modifications-without-telling-them.html It would seem Insurers are increasingly rejecting claims, due to Policyholders not declaring information relevant to the risk. If people are in doubt about anything that could affect the risk, they should phone the Insurers to discuss and either get written confirmation or make a full record. The FOS report over 7,000 complaints about Motor Insurance, with 25,000 enquiries. People should be aware that the FOS do try to reduce the number of complaints they handle, by trying to filter out those they do not think have any merit or are not worth looking at. If people think their complaint is not being taken seriously by the FOS, they should obtain other advice by coming to consumer sites like CAG. Depending on the details, it could be worth pursuing in other ways. Remember that the FOS is funded by the financial services companies and has always been underfunded, so struggles to deal with the volume of complaints received. It is not unknown for some complaints to take well over a year to resolve.

Hi Every one I had received a parking ticket for allegedly parking in a restricted area (client permit area) from High view parking. to further explain, we wanted some new carpets and went in a shop in hillsborough in sheffield which allows free customer parking. We parked in an area where there was a board of customer parking on the wall that i parked against, on the adjacent wall there was permit parking board. I genuinely thought it was customer parking, parked only to get a notice that i had parked in restricted area which was for clients only from high view parking. I stayed there for 17 mins. they had camera to prove i entered and stayed in what they say was a restricted area. i appealed to them initially really not understanding difference between client & customer saying my visit was for a genuine reason and they could cross check it with carpet shop. (my stupidity) and it got rejected , no surprise. I wrote to popla and giving them the explanation that the signage suggested customer parking, and there was ambuiguity and had it been more clear i would have not parked in the area. Popla has replied back saying it was still my fault to park there. I tried uploading my evidence but the website would not allow (technical problem) and than popla would not accept my pictures as case was submitted. What do i do now. ? As submission to popla, highview parking submitted a document delineating the various signage they have, but not mentioning that they have a misleading sign board in the restricted client area. Feel the decision is unfair, as i feel there should never be misleading signs. i dont know the laws regarding misleading signs in a private parking. I have now received a notice to pay £125 in 14 days. Should i take them to court ? because i still feel my case was not fully heard by POPLA. i have emails from POPLA where i have tried to convince them on allowing me to give them picture evidence but they have rejected it. ANy advice or help will be useful. attached is the picture of the area and signage

Hi, I have the same thing, I also live on Selden Hill. I have appealed saying that I have a car parking space with an OPC badge and because my working hours are long, I come home and generally there is someone in my space, and I have a 1 year old. So I parked in another space and got a ticket. The appeal was declined and the appeal letter stated court action unless I paid the fine (or something along those lines) I am now very worried as I cant afford the fine and dont feel I should pay, and secondly because I cant have a CCJ as it will affect me mortgage wise in the future so I feel pressured to pay. Help and advise would be great!

My wife put a claim in for PPI cover she paid on a loan from HSBC and also for a Credit Card. They have approved the loan but rejected the CC claim. Their reason was as follows : "Our records show that in DATE, you applied for an optional Cardholder Repayment Protector to protect your HSBC Credit Card. This policy is designed to repay 10% of the outstanding credit card balance for a maximum of twelve months in the event of sickness, accident or redundancy. Life cover is also included in this plan. The Policy Document and Product Information Pack explained how the policy worked together with the claims procedure and the exclusions that applied. The Policy Document confirmed that you had a period of time in which you had the right to cancel the Cardholder Repayment Protector. Due to the Data Protection Act, HSBC cannot keep records indefinitely. Unfortunately, due to the passage of time, the original documentation has not been located. However, I can confirm that it is not Bank procedure to issue insurance without the appropriate documentation being completed first. I would also point out that premiums paid in respect of the plan have appeared on your statements where there has been an outstanding balance, throughout the period your policy has been in force. Therefore I consider adequate steps were taken to ensure you were aware that you had Payment Protection Insurance on your credit card and to advise you of the main product features. I realise that you may be disappointed with my decision but I hope that this letter has been helpful in explaining the reasons for it and that I have been able to respond to your concerns satisfactorily. However, if you have any further information or evidence that you feel is then please forward for my consideration" My wife is certainly disappointed with their response on this. Is that the end of things? Do they have a legitimate defence? Certainly as a layperson the idea that someone can enter into an agreement without a set end date, with a limited time to cancel might fall under the scope of consumer laws on unfair terms in contracts. She claimed for several grounds. One of them was that they refused to allow her to cancel the policy. My initial thoughts are that they seem to have conceded the point she made about being unable to cancel the policy. She attempted this twice over the phone and once in branch. She took out the credit card in branch and was told to just sign at the bottom without any explanation as to the suitability of the insurance. She was in temporary employment with an agency at the time. How best should she reply to this?