My post generally arrives between 8am and 3pm which would make it a pain.

My belief is the day of the offence is day 0.

Have you responded - in the manner in which you are requested to - to the SJPN.

Whilst you are corresponding with the CTO the SJ process continues. Unless you actually deal with it as required you will eventually just get convicted in your absence. You .it struggle to get the case reopened since you are aware of it.

It's Private land, so you are not looking for road signs. Merely the terms and conditions.

It's a bit odd that the road naming sign looks to me like an authority one. It's far from obvious it's Private land. Though the paving is a modest clue.

Province Dr
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oSNfype9AvRjwYmg8?g_st=ac

The sign, which they will claim was blindingly obvious and sufficient is above. Though GSV is a bit old so may not be current.

A driver parking as this one did may not even have gone that far.

-----
From the Aug 22  view it looks as though the driver was parked just before a barrier which is lowered in a GSV photograph and opposite a small no parking sign on a building wall (which is not offering any contract and is no more than a request anyway).

The woeful signage etc may become relevant later.

From: 46 Surrey Quays Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/AxqWBoJG8bHR7eSy9?g_st=ac

It is also the case that PPL isn't a subsidiary of PPE (or vice versa). It cannot be. The director controls over 75% of the shares.

The use of "premises" rather than a business name or location is very common. (Though has clearly caused confusion).

Thanks both.

Essex don't appear to have an online system with the photographs so we will email them.

It doesn't stop the response timer, and they have no obligation to answer.

If persued the permitting will typically be £300 and 6pts if dealt with via fixed penalty.

If the hirer wanted to use that argument (if the chargeback is declined) they would almost certainly be the one having to do the suing though!

The chargeback is unlikely to be declined. It's a voluntary process by card issuers and acquirers with limited scope for refusal, though what US rules are in place by this particular issuesr will determine whether it is allowed or not.

An issue is whether it gets re-debited somewhere down the line when (if) enterprise say "No, we maintain it was a valid charge".

With a chargeback the issuer is a go between.

Many hire companies have widened the terms to include the word "charges" to attempt to bring private tickets into scope.

There is, perhaps, a consumer rights argument. It may be an unfair term if it is not refunded where a charge is cancelled.

I have had hire agreements with:-

- Refunded if charge cancelled (fairly common)
- Explicitly not refunded
- Silent

A reasonable interpretation of the latter may be that the term only applies to valid charges.