Excel vanishing Windscreen PCN NTK - parked in a restricted area - GALLAGHER retail park, Huddersfield, HD5 0AN

[FTMDave]

I agree with the others.

I've been on this site eight years and have seen plenty of people naively appeal to Excel/VCS - not in one case did Simple Simon accept the appeal.  Unfortunately most of those who did appeal also outed themselves as the driver and made winning more difficult.

Interesting that their invoice is for parking in a restricted area, rather than parking outside of a bay.

Also interesting that we had absolutely nothing on this car park - and now there are two cases within a few days of each other.  Do you know if these parking restrictions are recent?  if so there is stuff in the industry Codes of Practice about the change having to be made apparent with special signs, none of which Excel will have put up.

[FTMDave]

3 minutes ago, Maffster said:

one of which (#4) has a notice under the passenger side wiper

So invoice not sent in the 29-56 day POFA window.

Vehicle there within the consideration period.

Please upload the photos.

[FTMDave]

I agree with everyone about the ten million reasons why this wouldn't stand up in court.

Just one thing though.  I think I made a mistake in post 11.

Does this daft Privacy Notice supposedly left on the vehicle count as a NTD?  I don't think it does.  It's not a demand for payment.  I think it's just some rubbish saying that the attendant has taken photos of the vehicle.

[FTMDave]

The point is that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act sets out two different timeframes in which the invoice has to get to you.

1.  If a Notice to Driver was left on the windscreen.  The timeframe is 29-56 days after the incident.

2.  If a NTD was not left.  Then within 14 days.

I think I jumped the gun and presumed (1), but in fact it was (2) in your case, as the bit of paper was not a NTD but instead just some rubbish telling you they were going to use images of the vehicle for "parking control" (AKA to rip you off).

None of this changes that their case is rubbish.

If you can upload an image of what your neighbour got that would clarify matters.

[FTMDave]

It was really this daft Privacy Notice we were after, but no worries, I'm 99% sure it doesn't count as a NTD otherwise in his letter Simple Simon wouldn't have offered the discount of paying £60 instead of £100.

Apologies for jumping the gun earlier.

It's a pity your friend paid.  It's neither here nor there if Excel would back down or not.  They are not some statutory authority.  They're just a cowboy private company.  The only way she could have been forced to pay is if a judge had ruled against her in a court hearing, which is highly unlikely given she could have proved to have been elsewhere.

I see her "offence" was in May 2023 so logically Excel and their signs were there by then.