Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 5th Feb 18, 10:58 PM
    • 6Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    HX Parking "Stopping Charge" Draft Defence
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 18, 10:58 PM
    HX Parking "Stopping Charge" Draft Defence 5th Feb 18 at 10:58 PM
    Hi, Looking for a bit of help with a Draft Defence after doing the AOS. Here is the original post I put on Pepipoo for the Back story;

    Evening all. I've received a PCN from the above company. A driver was photographed (he thinks by a little man in a dark silver BMW 3 series touring) in a "No stopping area" on a Shell garage forecourt. The length of the stop according to the photographs is 7 minutes! The amount payable is for 60 rising to 100 after 14 days

    Initial thoughts are;

    1) Ignore

    2) Send them a letter telling them I wont be naming the driver but they can pay me a 100 administration fee to find out who the driver was along with a fee schedule for dealing with the matter.

    I've found the most similar case on here and tweaked it. Is it any good? Thanks in advance!

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. On the material date, a driver stopped on the forecourt for a very brief period of time. The Driver did not see any nearby signage and there were no Yellow markings in this area prohibiting this.

    2. I subsequently received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant, alleging that a charge of 100 was due to them. I did not send an appeal to the Claimant. or a further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant!!!8217;s trade body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC). My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

    3. The Claimant!!!8217;s signage with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;NO STOPPING AT ALL!!!8221;. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    It should be noted that since the date of the Alleged offence the Signage and Markings at the site have been improved. This would indicate an Admission by the Claimant that the signage and Markings were inadequate and deliberately misleading.











    The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:
    !!!8220;If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay 100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels!!!8217; first analysis that essentially the 100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.!!!8221;


    While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case will be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.

    4. The Driver of the needed to stop away from the main forecourt because of a mechanical problem so as not to cause disruption to other motorists. The driver chose the area as a place of refuge.

    5. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the !!!8216;contravention!!!8217; according to the Claimant is already committed.

    6. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up

    In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8 ,


    7. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

    8. Thus the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.


    Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014.
    Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

    The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.

    The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.

    The regulations define an on-premises contract as:
    !!!8220;on-premises contract!!!8221; means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;
    Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract.

    The regulations define a distance contract as:
    !!!8220;distance contract!!!8221; means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

    !!!8226; This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
    !!!8226; The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
    !!!8226; There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

    This is therefore a distance contract.

    None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away.

    Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2. As per 13(1) the contract is therefore not binding.

    Alternatively if the contract is on or off-premises, the information rules still apply and the contract is not binding as per either 9(1) or 10(1).

    Additionally, the charge of 100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying 100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay 100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015..


    9. In addition to the 100 !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217;, for which liability is denied, the Claimant!!!8217;s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of 50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
    Last edited by Parkingcompaniesfoad; 05-02-2018 at 11:28 PM. Reason: forgot to edit
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 5th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Feb 18, 11:02 PM
    On the material date, I stopped on the forecourt for a very brief period of time. I did not see any nearby signage and there were no Yellow markings in this area prohibiting this.
    Why would you name the driver?! eeeek!

    Did you actually send that and thereby name the driver?

    As you are at AOS stage and have done that, then how long do you have to get this defence in?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 5th Feb 18, 11:27 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • #3
    • 5th Feb 18, 11:27 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Feb 18, 11:27 PM
    Why would you name the driver?! eeeek!

    Did you actually send that and thereby name the driver?

    As you are at AOS stage and have done that, then how long do you have to get this defence in?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I did the AOS 13 days ago following the instructions on here. The Issue date was 8th Jan so I reckon I've got until the 10th of Feb (33 days from issue) to get the defence in!

    I've not named the driver, I've just not edited the one i copied properly.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Feb 18, 7:00 AM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:00 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:00 AM
    The McDonald's/ Shell site at Salterhebble Hill in Halifax, presumably?

    A well known 'honeytrap', which has "no stopping" signs at the jetwash where you have to stop to wash your car.

    The signage here is laughably incapable of forming a contract.

    Your defence can be brief and focus solely on:
    * Inadequate PoC which do not comply with civil procedure rules/ practice directions.
    * No cause of action/ no case to answer
    * Signage which makes no offer therefore cannot form a contract.
    * Failure to comply with IPC code of practice.
    * (Maybe) PoFA compliance, if you haven't revealed the driver.
    • The Slithy Tove
    • By The Slithy Tove 6th Feb 18, 7:46 AM
    • 3,291 Posts
    • 4,795 Thanks
    The Slithy Tove
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:46 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:46 AM
    The length of the stop according to the photographs is 7 minutes!
    Originally posted by Parkingcompaniesfoad
    Are you disputing the car was "stopped" for 7 minutes? That length of time is not "stopping", it's parking, so don't try those sort of semantics as an argument.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Feb 18, 8:11 AM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,979 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 18, 8:11 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Feb 18, 8:11 AM
    It is a scam, watch this,

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain to your MP.

    Gladstones are in a bit of bother, they may not be around for much longer.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 6th Feb 18, 7:30 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • #7
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:30 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:30 PM
    Correct. The site beggars belief. Should be noted that since the incident they've upped the markings and signage suggesting they knew it was inadequate before.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Feb 18, 7:43 PM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:43 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Feb 18, 7:43 PM
    Yes but does it still say "no stopping at all" ?

    If so they could have a million of them in giant font but they still wouldn't form a contract.
    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 6th Feb 18, 8:21 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 18, 8:21 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Feb 18, 8:21 PM
    Yes I think they're the same signs they've just put more of them up! Is this any better? (excuse the dodgy formatting i'll sort that before submission)

    1)Inadequate PoC which do not comply with civil procedure rules/ practice directions.
    The Claimant has provided no details to disclose a cause of action (in breach of CPR 16.4) to eneable a defence and therefore the defendant has no case to answer and respectfully requests the court to strike out the claim.

    2) Signage which makes no offer therefore cannot form a contract.
    The Claimants signage with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;NO STOPPING AT ALL!!!8221;. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    It should be noted that since the date of the Alleged offence the Signage and Markings at the site have been improved. This would indicate an admission by the Claimant that the signage and markings were inadequate and deliberately misleading.
    In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, according to the Claimant the offence is already committed.

    3) Failure to comply with IPC code of practice.
    The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

    4)
    The Defendant Neither admits or denies driving the Vehicle at the relevant time. If the Claimant avers that the Defendant was the driver then the Claimant would be required to prove that point. If the Claimant is claiming against the Defendant as the keeper of the Vehicle under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to do so.
    5)
    The Driver of the vehicle needed to stop away from the main forecourt because of a mechanical problem so as not to cause disruption to other motorists. The driver chose the area as a place of refuge.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Feb 18, 9:34 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think this should be near the start, not at the end:

    The Driver of the vehicle needed to stop away from the main forecourt because of a mechanical problem, so as not to cause disruption to other motorists. The driver chose the area as a safe place of refuge for a matter of minutes, to resolve a temporary emergency issue with the vehicle.

    Define acronyms in full before using them (e.g. 'IPC' and 'POC').

    What about stating that the ticketer hides in a BMW and tickets cars immediately, within minutes, which just the sort of 'predatory' practice banned by the IPC CoP (quote the bit about predatory practices).

    Personally I don't like this wording; it sounds evasive and might not please a Judge:
    The Defendant Neither admits or denies driving the Vehicle at the relevant time.
    I prefer something like:

    The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and this Claimant has not provided any evidence as to the identity of the driver. (Then mention the POFA and keeper liability).

    Or, don't hide behind keeper liability/the POFA at all. Be the driver, stand there and say it like it was.

    And if I got a Gladstones or BW Legal claim now, I would be quoting from Hansard re the Parliamentary debate last Friday, where an MP named and shamed them. Judges seem to have their heads in the sand sometimes, so showing them that the matter has been debated in Parliament and just this sort of case has been described as a ''disgrace to the Country'' (and worse) might assist.

    The debate is in the link provided by The Deep. Use it to your advantage, use the MPs' words...
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 06-02-2018 at 9:36 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 6th Feb 18, 10:12 PM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I agree with CM, the 'neither admit or deny' sounds like you don't want to say what really happened.

    Why don't you use Johnersh's wording from the defence linked in newbies:

    "The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that: (i)there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    (ii)that it has followed the required deadlines and mandatory wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements


    To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter."
    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 6th Feb 18, 11:13 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    Ok, I think it's sorted.

    1)
    Inadequate Particulars of Claim which do not comply with civil procedure rules/ practice directions.
    The Claimant has provided no details to disclose a cause of action (in breach of CPR 16.4) to enable a defence and therefore the defendant has no case to answer and respectfully requests the court to strike out the claim.

    2)
    The Driver of the vehicle needed to stop away from the main forecourt because of a mechanical problem so as not to cause disruption to other motorists. The driver chose the area as a place of refuge for a matter of minutes, to resolve a temporary emergency issue with the vehicle.

    3)
    Signage which makes no offer therefore cannot form a contract.
    The Claimants signage with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;NO STOPPING AT ALL!!!8221;. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    It should be noted that since the date of the Alleged offence the Signage and Markings at the site have been improved. This would indicate an admission by the Claimant that the signage and markings were inadequate and deliberately misleading.
    In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, according to the Claimant the offence is already committed.

    4)
    Failure to comply with International Parking Community code of practice.
    The IPC code of practice states;
    a) That a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
    b) !!!8220;14.1 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code.!!!8221;
    In this instance the ticketer hides in a BMW and tickets cars immediately, within minutes, which is just the sort of 'predatory' practice banned by the IPC CoP.
    5)
    The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that: (i)there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    (ii)that it has followed the required deadlines and mandatory wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements

    To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    6)
    The Claimant !!!8220;Gladstones solicitors!!!8221; were mentioned in a Parliamentary debate on 02/02/2018 circa 13:06hrs where an MP named and shamed them. And I quote !!!8220;We need to crack down on these rogue companies, they!!!8217;re an absolute disgrace to this country, ordinary motorists, ordinary residents should not have to put up with this and I wholeheartedly support the bill today!!!8221;
    • Parkingcompaniesfoad
    • By Parkingcompaniesfoad 7th Feb 18, 8:55 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Parkingcompaniesfoad
    Could anyone confirm this is good to go, need to get it submitted tonight if possible?

    Much appreciated
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 4:21 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We assume you did, & that you signed and dated it with a statement of truth, as you see on this forum?

    And that you have now had a DQ from the court and filled that in & returned it to the court and to Gladstones, and that you might soon get your letter telling you the case is allocated to your local court, and then a letter telling you the date by which all parties MUST file their WS and evidence, well before the hearing.

    Anyway, on pepipoo I've just seen a copy of a HX Notice to Keeper, which is NON-POFA:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119328

    You can spot why, good research for people going to a hearing against HX, where the driver is not admitted or evidenced. This will be mentioned in your WS, assuming your NTK is the same.

    CLUE: the important giveaway paragraph ends with the word 'driver'.

    And here's a case where a poster won on that basis, explained the omission well to the Judge:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73805827#post73805827
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-03-2018 at 4:25 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • leighlad86
    • By leighlad86 18th Mar 18, 8:27 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    leighlad86
    Caught another driver too
    I too have just received a PCN from hx at the same spot. It was on the 3rd of March and the day in question snow was covering any markings. I have never know anything like it at a petrol station. The driver stopped near the jet wash and sinage looked as though it related to McDonald's not the garage. I have appealed on the hx website but I have never had a ticket in 10 years of driving. I guess said appeal will be turned down? Where should I go from there?

    Many thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 18th Mar 18, 8:41 PM
    • 7,214 Posts
    • 6,717 Thanks
    KeithP
    I too have just received a PCN from hx at the same spot. It was on the 3rd of March and the day in question snow was covering any markings. I have never know anything like it at a petrol station. The driver stopped near the jet wash and sinage looked as though it related to McDonald's not the garage. I have appealed on the hx website but I have never had a ticket in 10 years of driving. I guess said appeal will be turned down? Where should I go from there?

    Many thanks
    Originally posted by leighlad86
    Leighlad86, from here you should go to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and have a read about the game you are caught up in.

    If you still have questions after that can you please start a new thread.

    Trying to address tow people's issues in one thread can only lead to confusion.

    Please no further response on this thread. Thanks.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 8:42 PM
    • 57,473 Posts
    • 71,073 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have never had a ticket in 10 years of driving
    You still haven't.

    Course it will be turned down, it's an IPC firm! Same as this advice given earlier on pepipoo:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=119271

    Follow the links to the Parking Prankster explaining the 'kangaroo court' of IAS/IPC.

    You need to go and read the NEWBIES sticky thread.

    If you later get a small claim, or a LBCCC from Gladstones, then come back and start your own thread after reading post #2 of the sticky thread.

    Not posting here, this is Parkingcompaniesfoad's own thread about his/her case.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

120Posts Today

1,283Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin