Free Traffic Legal Advice

Terrible article and full of factual errors. Still, it will leave Initial feeling glum.

If it is your case that was being referred to, feel free to direct the reporter to me via this site or PM me and I can give him some accurate information.

There's no question in my mind that the media exposure has led to the parking operator withdrawing their case.

I would suggest that they simply didn't want their fraudulent business methods examined in greater detail - in particular the fraudulent nature of their PCNs / NtKs which claim keeper liability under PoFA when no such liability exists.

Add to that, the danger that this type of extended press exposure leads to a far greater number of drivers refusing to pay the PCNs - this particular location is probably a nice little earner for them so they have simply looked at the bigger picture.

 

Initial have been trying various odd explanations over the years... I remember a few years back (when PePiPoo was still running) their argument was that the byelaws were just a "draft" because they hadn't been signed off by the secretary of state. Although one wonders why the airport publishes them as if they are live.

In this case they seem to have pivoted to claiming they don't exist at all.

Anyway, good result for your case!