Free Traffic Legal Advice

READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**,

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

we need to see the pcn, and your appeal and their response redact you personal details.
post using an external host please.

we're you on your own? they suggest you were with someone and that person was driving?
who is the registered keeper?

Hear goes, the regulars will comment on this.

The Excel Parking sign shows their address as a PO Box.

On a recent u-tube video by The Blackbelt Barrister (yes a Barrister) who has covered quite a few PPN`s he says that a contract cannot be made which gives a PO Box address.  He refers to the Consumer Credit Act, also a company cannot register at company house giving a PO Box as their company address it must be a Geographical address.

Never revealed the name of the driver, to anyone. If you see IAS Excel has reported that the appellant was the driver and appellant was the keeper.

Which doesn't make sense - how can my mother be the driver without a license?

What actual evidence have they provided to prove that the "driver" left the premises?

All that effort you put into wasted appeals that were never going to work! The burden of proof is on them to prove the breach of any term, not for you to disprove. What a waste of effort.

You haven't even shown us the Notice to Keeper (NtK) that was sent. That will have the wording that they are relying on in their allegation.

Their sign states "Customer use only while on the premises. Anyone seen to be parking and walking off site will be in breach of the terms and conditions". How can that even be an enforceable term in a contract?

Ask yourself, if the driver parks but only a passenger walks off site (not that any boundaries are defined as to where the actual "site" is delimited), who is the person deemed to have breached the terms? It’s unclear who exactly would be breaching the terms if only a passenger (and not the driver) leaves the premises.

A contract cannot reasonably hold the driver liable for the actions of other occupants unless it explicitly specifies that responsibility. Even if it did, such a term would be open to challenge for being unfair, as the driver cannot control the actions of passengers in all circumstances.

Without clear delineation of the "site" boundary, the driver (or passengers) have no way of understanding what constitutes "walking off site." A contract term that is ambiguous to this degree is considered unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it lacks the necessary transparency for the driver to make an informed decision about parking.

Hopefully, you now realise that you are dealing with a scammer. This willingly be resolved in the ultimate dispute resolution arena, the small claims track of the county court.

Ignore any and all debt collector letters. They are powerless to do anything. Use them as kindling or line the bottom of a litter tray.

If/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) giving you 30 days to pay or they will issue a claim, come back and we'll advise on the next steps. For now, get on with your life and don't worry about this. It is easily defended when the time comes.

And this warden or such could have warned the person they saw leaving the site that a PCN could be issued.

It's not a "grace" period. You are confusing the "grace" period with the "consideration" period. Doesn't matter.

Come back if/when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). You are dealing with intellectually malnourished people, They have zero evidence that the driver left the site.

They may issue a claim in order to try and scare you into paying. However, they would never let this get in front of a judge. It's what is known as a "toothbrush" case.

The "toothbrush" claim specifically originates from an incident where a judge, frustrated by the claimant’s lack of evidence, warned the claimant's legal representative to “bring a toothbrush” if they intended to present similarly baseless cases in the future. The implication was that the representative could face severe repercussions, even contempt of court, if they continued to waste judicial resources with unsubstantiated claims.

In that instance, the claim involved an accusation that the driver had "left the site" of a parking area without any supporting evidence beyond photos of the vehicle parked. The judge considered it a serious abuse of the court’s time, suggesting that the claimant’s representative might not be "going home" next time if they presented similarly flimsy claims. This term has since become infamous in parking litigation, reminding claimants to ensure they have substantial evidence before making allegations in court.