We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkDirect UK in Uxbridge - Any feedback on my POPLA Letter?
maslaw
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi All,
I'm a new member but have been found the advice given on this forum an amazing and invaluable resource over the past two months. I have resisted posting about a PCN I received, as I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. But now that I have got to the POPLA stage, I thought it would be foolish to send off my POPLA appeal without seeking your advice first!
I've received a PCN from ParkDirect UK in Uxbridge issued early February, for parking on their site for a very short time. There are photos, taken by an inspector, showing this time difference. I received this letter 10 days after the alleged offence took place.
Following the advice on this forum, I wrote an appeals letter (which I am happy to post if you need to see it, but rest assured, it was written by "The Registered Keeper"!). I received a letter back rejecting my appeal on the following grounds:
"1) We would like to inform you that the owner of the land at xxxx has granted the use of this land for parking for members of the gym as well as local business who lease their allocated bays. By parking unlawfully and occupying one of the spaces you are causing an inconvenience and loss to the leasers, gym members, gym owner and therefore naturally to the owner of the land. In future please ensure you are more than cautious as to where you park your vehicle so as to prevent any further PCN's
2) This PCN was issued via post to the registered keeper. This usually occurs when the driver drives off before the attendant has finished issuing/printing the ticket.
3) The PCN clearly states that all payments, postal orders, cheques etc are to be made payable to Park Direct UK Ltd which therefore makes us the creditors
4) As we carry out a service on behalf of the landowner on their own property, we do have the right to offer contracts and recover parking charges on their behalf and with their permission."
However, they did give me a POPLA code, and according to the ParkingCowboys gizmo, I now have until 29th of March to send in my appeal. After reading a lot of other cases I have drafted the following letter and am looking for any advice on it, and whether I need to make any alterations/add any more info. Apologies, I'm sure most of it will be familiar to most of you!:
POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:
Car Park:
Dear POPLA assessor,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.
1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
2) Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) Unlawful penalty charge
4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
5) Covert ticketing operation is not BPA CoP compliant
6) Lack of Business Rates and VAT
7) ANPR Usage
1) Lack of British Parking Association (BPA) compliant signage – No Contract Formed with Driver.
On inspection of the evidence sent by ParkDirectUK - the signage is extremely small, and are placed only on a building adjacent to the site in question.
There was no contract formed with the driver and if ParkDirect had wanted to communicate the area to be a no-stopping zone then they were required to sign it accordingly, with clearway signage, yellow hashings or red lines, and repeater 'no stopping zone' signs facing the driver. This was covered by the Lead Adjudicator in the last POPLA Annual report where it was made clear that ordinary, wordy signs on walls are not suitable for a no-stopping zone. Additionally it is entirely unclear as to the boundaries of the site supposedly being controlled by the signs.
Because signs were only found on a position adjacent to the site in question, this Operator has failed to communicate the terms of parking. Due to the small font and position on the wall, to any reasonable visitor it looks as if the white sign is not a parking sign but one related to the adjacent building. And the yellow sign (if seen, which it was not because it is not prominent) could not have created a contract as there is no offer, consideration nor acceptance that can flow to/from an Operator using such wording. No other signs are in the area, as far as I could see when checking the site, so I contend that the driver cannot be deemed to have entered into any contract nor breached any clearly-signed terms.
I contend that the signs and any core parking terms are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])
2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.
In the appeal, ParkDirectUK did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).
In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the need to mitigate any loss in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe the driver.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
The £100 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only stopped for approximately 1 minute 30 seconds. The area was very quiet and no other vehicles were obstructed for the duration. Therefore the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs ParkDirectUK has suffered as a result of the car being stopped at the car park is required and should add up to £100.
3) Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
ParkDirectUK lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
I put ParkDirectUK to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.
According to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contain the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
5) Covert ticketing operation is not BPA CoP compliant.
The unknown person taking the pictures didn't apply a windscreen Parking Charge Notice so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach. No employee was seen wearing any kind of uniform or ID showing they are involved with 'parking enforcement', please could I see evidence that the person was properly trained in the BPA CoP as is required for any self-ticketing. The lack of grace period and the secret pictures taken leads me to believe this was not a trained operative. Nor were they using a liveried vehicle, I contend that mobile phone pictures from a passer-by are neither reliable nor compliant with the BPA CoP as this is not a reasonable, consistent nor transparent operation.
6) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
ParkDirectUK run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no signs were seen by the driver at all) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put ParkDirectUK to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.
I contend that this operation is not a case of a contractual agreed fee to park at all - a firm cannot on the one hand prohibit 'stopping' and yet on the other try to paint the charge as a contractual fee in order to allow 'stopping'! If ParkDirect are operating a contractual fee here then their contract with the landowner must show this to be the case. As evidence from ParkDirect, as well as proving that Business Rates and VAT are being paid - I hereby require a VAT invoice to be sent with both copies of the evidence pack. No VAT invoice for my 'charge' will prove my point that this is not a genuine 'contractual fee for a service'.
7) Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'.
ParkDirect fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As ParkDirect have no clear signage on arrival to the site in question, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent'.
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if ParkDirect fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxx
Phew! Apologies, its a little on the long side! I really would value any advice, the £100 "fine" would be really punishing. Thanks for having the time to look over this, really appreciate it!
All the best,
Maslaw
I'm a new member but have been found the advice given on this forum an amazing and invaluable resource over the past two months. I have resisted posting about a PCN I received, as I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. But now that I have got to the POPLA stage, I thought it would be foolish to send off my POPLA appeal without seeking your advice first!
I've received a PCN from ParkDirect UK in Uxbridge issued early February, for parking on their site for a very short time. There are photos, taken by an inspector, showing this time difference. I received this letter 10 days after the alleged offence took place.
Following the advice on this forum, I wrote an appeals letter (which I am happy to post if you need to see it, but rest assured, it was written by "The Registered Keeper"!). I received a letter back rejecting my appeal on the following grounds:
"1) We would like to inform you that the owner of the land at xxxx has granted the use of this land for parking for members of the gym as well as local business who lease their allocated bays. By parking unlawfully and occupying one of the spaces you are causing an inconvenience and loss to the leasers, gym members, gym owner and therefore naturally to the owner of the land. In future please ensure you are more than cautious as to where you park your vehicle so as to prevent any further PCN's
2) This PCN was issued via post to the registered keeper. This usually occurs when the driver drives off before the attendant has finished issuing/printing the ticket.
3) The PCN clearly states that all payments, postal orders, cheques etc are to be made payable to Park Direct UK Ltd which therefore makes us the creditors
4) As we carry out a service on behalf of the landowner on their own property, we do have the right to offer contracts and recover parking charges on their behalf and with their permission."
However, they did give me a POPLA code, and according to the ParkingCowboys gizmo, I now have until 29th of March to send in my appeal. After reading a lot of other cases I have drafted the following letter and am looking for any advice on it, and whether I need to make any alterations/add any more info. Apologies, I'm sure most of it will be familiar to most of you!:
POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:
Car Park:
Dear POPLA assessor,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.
1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
2) Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) Unlawful penalty charge
4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
5) Covert ticketing operation is not BPA CoP compliant
6) Lack of Business Rates and VAT
7) ANPR Usage
1) Lack of British Parking Association (BPA) compliant signage – No Contract Formed with Driver.
On inspection of the evidence sent by ParkDirectUK - the signage is extremely small, and are placed only on a building adjacent to the site in question.
There was no contract formed with the driver and if ParkDirect had wanted to communicate the area to be a no-stopping zone then they were required to sign it accordingly, with clearway signage, yellow hashings or red lines, and repeater 'no stopping zone' signs facing the driver. This was covered by the Lead Adjudicator in the last POPLA Annual report where it was made clear that ordinary, wordy signs on walls are not suitable for a no-stopping zone. Additionally it is entirely unclear as to the boundaries of the site supposedly being controlled by the signs.
Because signs were only found on a position adjacent to the site in question, this Operator has failed to communicate the terms of parking. Due to the small font and position on the wall, to any reasonable visitor it looks as if the white sign is not a parking sign but one related to the adjacent building. And the yellow sign (if seen, which it was not because it is not prominent) could not have created a contract as there is no offer, consideration nor acceptance that can flow to/from an Operator using such wording. No other signs are in the area, as far as I could see when checking the site, so I contend that the driver cannot be deemed to have entered into any contract nor breached any clearly-signed terms.
I contend that the signs and any core parking terms are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])
2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.
In the appeal, ParkDirectUK did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).
In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the need to mitigate any loss in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe the driver.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
The £100 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only stopped for approximately 1 minute 30 seconds. The area was very quiet and no other vehicles were obstructed for the duration. Therefore the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs ParkDirectUK has suffered as a result of the car being stopped at the car park is required and should add up to £100.
3) Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
ParkDirectUK lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
I put ParkDirectUK to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.
According to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contain the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 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) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
5) Covert ticketing operation is not BPA CoP compliant.
The unknown person taking the pictures didn't apply a windscreen Parking Charge Notice so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach. No employee was seen wearing any kind of uniform or ID showing they are involved with 'parking enforcement', please could I see evidence that the person was properly trained in the BPA CoP as is required for any self-ticketing. The lack of grace period and the secret pictures taken leads me to believe this was not a trained operative. Nor were they using a liveried vehicle, I contend that mobile phone pictures from a passer-by are neither reliable nor compliant with the BPA CoP as this is not a reasonable, consistent nor transparent operation.
6) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
ParkDirectUK run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no signs were seen by the driver at all) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put ParkDirectUK to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.
I contend that this operation is not a case of a contractual agreed fee to park at all - a firm cannot on the one hand prohibit 'stopping' and yet on the other try to paint the charge as a contractual fee in order to allow 'stopping'! If ParkDirect are operating a contractual fee here then their contract with the landowner must show this to be the case. As evidence from ParkDirect, as well as proving that Business Rates and VAT are being paid - I hereby require a VAT invoice to be sent with both copies of the evidence pack. No VAT invoice for my 'charge' will prove my point that this is not a genuine 'contractual fee for a service'.
7) Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) usage
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'.
ParkDirect fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As ParkDirect have no clear signage on arrival to the site in question, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent'.
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if ParkDirect fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above. I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
xxxxx
Phew! Apologies, its a little on the long side! I really would value any advice, the £100 "fine" would be really punishing. Thanks for having the time to look over this, really appreciate it!
All the best,
Maslaw
0
Comments
-
looks well constructed but dont just take my word for it
on a sidenote, they appear to have broken the BPA CoP which usually seems to indicate that the driver should have up to 10 minutes "grace period" to read the signs and depart if they cannot comply, so less than 2 minutes would indicate to me that the driver was not given a sufficient "grace period"
I think I would include this in your popla appeal somewhere and also make sure its worded as THE DRIVER , none of this implying who was driving like "I WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT GRACE PERIOD"
point 5) mentions it in passing but needs more info I believe
a similar complaint should also go to s clark at the BPA too (SEE THE NEWBIES STICKY THREAD)
when submitting to popla, if online, attach the appeal and put a note on your info box to see the attachment, maybe posting one off too (as well)0 -
....with a FREE CoP from the Post Office, of course:-)
op-you have a good mindset and attitude.CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0 -
This looks good, but add the bit extra that Redx recommends. Never apologise for it being long, it just means there are more points for the PPC to answer. The more of their time you can waste the better. Although on saying that they probably won't bother even attempting to fight this one.
It is refreshing to see someone who has actually read the threads and made a very good go of it by themselves, and just shows what is possible if you actually read the forum.0 -
read post #18 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4919594 , I found it very informative seeing as a retired solicitor wrote it
0 -
Sorry - but points in your appeal don't apply here -
with a windscreen ticket - there would be no need for ANPR so that section is not required.
Parkdirect notices to keeper also are not compliant under POFA to invoke keeper liability - so this point needs adding - hope your original appeal did not infer who the driver was though.
Also business rates is not relevant really at the POPLA stage -especially for such a small PPC - (I only recommend sometimes putting it in for P/Eye)
VAT is also not relevant as Parkdirect do not do contractual charges
I suggest that you try again with the appeal - do a forum search for Parkdirect - and I think I recognise this site - another one recently on this forum.
Also mention grace period insufficient to enable a valid contract with the driver to be made on the day. _
However I believe Parkdirect state 60 seconds is their grace period!
@Redx - there is no set time for grace periods - they vary from site to site and PPC0 -
I received this letter 10 days after the alleged offence took place.
As the OP received a letter 10 days after the offence I would say this was a NtK issue rather than a Notice to Driver followed by a NtK. I think the 'photos' the OP is referring to are actually ANPR images.
Whilst I agree that VAT and business rates are not strictly relevant, there's nothing to be lost by putting them to proof.0 -
@Da_rule - the OP also states in their rejection letter Parkdirect states:2) This PCN was issued via post to the registered keeper. This usually occurs when the driver drives off before the attendant has finished issuing/printing the ticket.
5) Covert ticketing operation is not BPA CoP compliant.
The unknown person taking the pictures didn't apply a windscreen Parking Charge Notice so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach. No employee was seen wearing any kind of uniform or ID showing they are involved with 'parking enforcement', please could I see evidence that the person was properly trained in the BPA CoP as is required for any self-ticketing. The lack of grace period and the secret pictures taken leads me to believe this was not a trained operative. Nor were they using a liveried vehicle, I contend that mobile phone pictures from a passer-by are neither reliable nor compliant with the BPA CoP as this is not a reasonable, consistent nor transparent operation.
Indicating a WINDSCREEN TICKET -
THE OP CANNOT PUT BOTH ANPR AND SELF-TICKETING INTO THE APPEAL AS THEY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.0 -
I see your point sorry, long day. Op was a ticket issued in the car park or not?0
-
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the advice - I was tempted to just pay the £60 early fee, but you've convinced me to do the right thing!
Just so you know, it was a PCN issued in the mail, not on the windscreen. Unless I'm misreading (the admittedly copy and pasted) bit in section 5 of my draft, it says:
"The unknown person taking the pictures didn't apply a windscreen Parking Charge Notice so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach."
So I can't see why you think it was a windscreen PCN, unless I'm reading the wrong bit? I believe it to be a parking attendant who took the photos, but did not have time to apply a windscreen ticket - heck, the car was only there a short amount of time.
Does this mean that the ANPR appeal is relevant?
@4consumerrights - I agree regarding finding a similar a case online, but I've had great difficulty finding any successful POPLA letters to Park Direct UK (apart from one recent one, which my draft is very similar to).
In regards to grace period, no harm adding an extra bit to it I suppose? And rest assured, I'll hand this in online and by registered post, once I have a few tweaks I guess!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards