Premier Parking Solutions PCN

Beewi · 27 March 2016 at 10:20PM

Hi folks,

Like many others, I have also received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Premier Parking Solutions following a stay at Fore Street, Totnes car park. I received a letter in the post addressed to me, advising that '...we have been informed that you were the keeper of vehicle registration number XXXX XXX and that the vehicle was observed to have contravened the parking regulations as clearly set down and displayed on signage in the car park.'

The letter goes on to give the times of me entering and departing the location, with photographic evidence of my vehicle, followed by...'Therefore it has been demonstrated that the vehicle has remained at the location for longer than permitted or no pay and display ticket was purchased, thereby contravening the parking regulations advertised on the signage on site.'

I appealed to PPS because I believed that I had received the PCN for over staying the car park by 6 minutes, which is easily done. Unfortunately I mistakenly revealed that I was the driver of the vehicle. However PPS rejected my appeal on the grounds that...'The vehicle was found to have parked on site without payment having been made to validate its stay.' They attached a screenshot of the whitelist showing all sessions against my vehicle registration, which shows that there was no payment made on the day.

I know for a fact that I paid for 3 hours parking, at around £3-£4, however in the absence of the parking ticket, how can I prove it? I have looked at previous threads showing appeal letters to POPLA, but these do not seem relevant to my situation and I am unsure where to start.

Can anyone please advise what my best course of action should be? According to PPS, I have until 31/03/16 to pay £60 or until 07/04/16 to appeal to POPLA - a POPLA code has been provided by PPS.

Thanks

Redx · 27 March 2016 at 10:46PM

the only way you can "prove" you paid was the receipt for the money, in other words the parking ticket you paid for. it may be that you put the incorrect VRN into the machine , but without the ticket you have no proof, the receipt forms the contract between you and the PPC, hence why people should kepp them for months

you can use the popla code and appeal on several legal arguments, including GRACE PERIODS - clause #13 of the BPA CoP, no contract , poor sugnage etc

but you cannot appeal on this missing ticet you say you bought, so concentrate on the other legal arguments, same as 98% of the other appellants do

post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread will help, as will the forum search box and suitable search words

unfortunately, revealing you were the diver means you lose at least one strong appeal point , even their letter said they were writing to you as keeper, so any appeal should have been on behalf of the keeper

Coupon-mad · 28 March 2016 at 12:13AM

As I said on the first thread you posted on, I am certain (because I've seen PPS play this punitive game before) that you will have made a typo in the VRN and PPS know you did, but they won't tell you that.

Any idea what may have gone wrong, do you have another car and put the wrong VRN in or did you only put the letters in, not the full VRN including the numbers? Any idea what you may have done, when you think about it?

Do you have a 0 that could have been put in as a capital O?

If you have an idea then you can work it into your POPLA appeal and put PPS to strict proof that the wrong VRN was not simply put in because you know for a fact that you paid for 3 hours parking, at around £3-£4, at xxpm (approx time) and so you require their evidential records - partially redacted VRNs is fine - showing all payments made during the hour (from the minute you are shown as driving in).

And demand a list of all unmatched payments made for that hour (those not matched to a VRN for whatever reason). State that you know ANPR records can and do produce as part of a daily report.

Then you can argue that PPS have failed to meet the BPA CoP which with ANPR systems requires them to make careful checks before issuing PCNs to make sure it is appropriate to issue a charge.

i.e. it is inappropriate and punitive to fine a person where they KNOW payment was made and these sort of PCNs should never be issued. The BPA has stated to Watchdog in the past that their members recognise that motorists may input an incorrect digit(s) of their VR number when purchasing a P&D ticket and as such, processing must include a manual review/quality check of PCN’s before they are issued. The relevant part of the BPA CoP states:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
General principles

21.1 ''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.

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action.''

State that you contend that the operator has failed on both counts - because there are no clear signs telling a driver how their data will be used - and you put them to strict proof to the contrary, bearing in mind that these points are mandatory as is shown by the word 'must'.

The above is just one POPLA appeal point. You MUST get this right before submitting the appeal. You need all the usual stuff as well, that you will see in other POPLA appeal examples on other threads this year so far. You will notice people show their drafts and we will help.

Go back a dozen pages on this forum for a few days, clicking on EVERY POPLA appeal thead you see and picking up the pattern needed, so you have an unclear signage paragraph about the £100 not being in large lettering anywhere, a 'no landowner authority' paragraph and a 'Beavis case not being relevant to a tariff car park' paragraph.

And a 'this is an unenforceable penalty' paragraph, because to charge people for a typo when PPS own records have this information and they KNOW you paid and displayed, is unfair and punitive, nothing more than a penalty and unenforceable because the Beavis case has no relevance to these circumstances. You need to tell POPLA that there can be no Beavis case comparison at all because there is NO 'legitimate interest' in pursuing a driver for £100 when PPS know full well that driver did pay and they are withholding that information, even though it is already in their mismatched VRN report for that day. Say you are incensed that you have had to work this out for yourself and they tried to fob you off in their misleading rejection letter with a search for the exact VRN when PPS know that this must be a VRN error that they are required, under CoP #21.2, to pick up in their ANPR manual checks in order to avoid exactly this sort of 'inappropriate' PCN.

The_Deep · 28 March 2016 at 11:10AM

In the final analysis it is only what happens in court that matters. If you tell a judge that you paid, he/she is likely to believe you and the PPC lose.

Beewi · 28 March 2016 at 6:39PM

Many thanks for that folks, it is very much appreciated.

I actually had my mum with me at the time and because i'm pregnant she jumped out of the car and entered my VRN into the machine and paid, trying to be helpful! It is very possible that she put the wrong VRN into the machine but she definitely put in the correct payment and obtained a ticket.

Anyhow, I will do my research as suggested and put something together over the next few days. I would be very grateful for your comments/suggestions before I submit anything.

Thank you!

Redx · 28 March 2016 at 6:42PM

its likely that the incorrect VRN was entered then

if you still have the paid for ticket, check it , its your parking contract receipt

if not , and in any case, draft up your popla appeal and get it checked on here, minus personal data and personal info , so dont add VRN number , name , address , pcn number or popla code as yet

check your popla code expiry date over on parking cowboys

in future , ensure the correct VRN is used, check the paid for ticket, keep the paid for ticket for a year or two, do not discard them

pappa_golf · 28 March 2016 at 6:45PM

Moved from the British Parking Association scheme to the IPC on 01/03/2016.

if incident before this date , make sure they offer POPLa and NOT IPC

Coupon-mad · 29 March 2016 at 12:33AM

Remember that I have already written an extra appeal point for you, above, and told you what evidence to require of the operator to disprove your point that the PCN should not have been issued because their checks under the BPA CoP should have picked up the similar VRN.

The_Deep · 29 March 2016 at 11:14AM

in future , ensure the correct VRN is used,

Easier said than done, we all human, and all prone to minor human errors.

keep the paid for ticket, keep the paid for ticket for a year or two, do not discard them

Hang on, that could be several hundred tickets, it is up to the PPC to prove that you bilked, not vice versa. Simple statements of truth are all that is required.

pulpotim1960 · 2 April 2016 at 10:49AM

Hi Beewi,

You have my sympathies: PPS are the lowest of the low; they will go to any lengths to extract money from honest customers like us. No other business that I know of treats its customers like they do and manage to stay in business. It’s an absolute disgrace and, in spite of changes in legislation regarding companies who manage private car parks (e.g. no clamping of vehicles), the system remains unfairly weighted in their favour. Unfortunately, words of sympathy are no use to you whatsoever, what you need is practical advice!

I second the comments of others here that are much more knowledgeable and experienced than I am in these matters and recommend that you follow their advice as best you can. I will offer my own experiences as I received a PCN from PPS in the same car park for exactly the same reason as you, so some of my comments will be very relevant to your case. As you acknowledge, it’s unfortunate that you admitted to being the driver and that you didn’t keep your ticket as proof of payment. Nonetheless, I think you can still build a strong case. Without wishing to offer false hope, I won my appeal (details to follow) and I’ve since been told by someone who’s met the owner / director of PPS that even if they win POPLA appeals, they never pursue motorists through the courts, because it’s simply too costly for them to do so.

In my case, like you, I overstayed my welcome by a few minutes and so I assumed this was the reason for the PCN, and my appeal to PPS was based exclusively around that. Like you, PPS rejected it on the grounds that I didn’t have a ticket. This surprised me as I’d bought one and could prove it. So, I e-mailed them saying they’ve made a mistake, attached a copy of the ticket and asked again for the PCN to be cancelled. I said I would certainly appeal to POPLA if they refused. They replied over a week later saying: “As you have indicated that you are going to appeal this parking charge to POPLA, we will supply all further relevant evidence to POPLA in due course at their request.” That’s all they said, nothing else, no detailed explanation as to why they’d issued the PCN even though I had a ticket. So, I duly submitted my appeal to POPLA.

The next stage is that POPLA send your appeal to PPS for them to comment. They (PPS) then submit their ‘Case Summary’, at which point you (the appellant) has an opportunity to submit additional comments based on what PPS have said in their case summary. It was only at this stage that the penny dropped that the whole issue was around the first letter of my vehicle’s registration missing on the printed ticket. As the reg’ on the ticket isn’t a 100% perfect match for the car’s registration, PPS argue that no ticket for the car was ever purchased and, therefore, they are right to issue the PCN. Complete and utter tosh of course - but that’s their pathetic and underhand reasoning. As others have said, I strongly suspect this is what has happened with you. It’s easily done: the other day, my wife mistakenly entered the letter ‘O’ instead of the number ‘0’.

On with the story. My next problem was that the ‘Additional Comments’ box on the POPLA website only allows 200 characters (not words) and there was no way that I could address this new issue - one that I hadn’t addressed in my original appeal to POPLA - as I was previously unaware of it. Fortunately, POPLA were happy for me to e-mail a PDF which they then attached to my case file. I’ve copied this in full below, in blue . . .

This is to comment on the ‘Case Summary’ notes submitted by Sue Blacksmith, POPLA Appeals Manager at Premier Parking Solutions (PPS).

Introduction
Unfortunately, in response to the appeal lodged with POPLA, it appears that PPS have changed their story and are now saying something very different to what they inferred in their PCN and in their subsequent rejection letter. It is difficult to address these new issues in the online form due to the 2,000 character restriction. Consequently, please accept this PDF - and apologies for its length.

Unreasonable Behaviour
It’s a sorry state of affairs when a motorist has to wait until PPS responds to an appeal to POPLA before finding out the real reason for the PCN and their refusal to cancel it. It now transpires that PPS’s entire case boils down to the first letter of the registration number missing on the printed ticket. This latest twist comes as a complete surprise, as PPS have not mentioned this in any of their previous correspondence.

The PCN states: “. . . Therefore, it has been demonstrated that the vehicle has remained at the location for longer than permitted or no pay and display ticket was purchased, thereby contravening the parking regulations advertised on the signage on site. . . ” It is clear from this that the PCN was issued for one of two reasons: either because no ticket was purchased or because the car was parked for longer than permitted. As a pay and display ticket had been purchased, it was assumed that the issue was due to the vehicle remaining at the location for longer than permitted which, according to the ANPR time stamps, it did by a mere 4 minutes 21 seconds. Therefore, this was the basis of the initial appeal against the PCN to PPS. However, in their letter rejecting the appeal, they made it clear that the issue was not the over stay, but that their systems indicated no ticket had been purchased. Therefore, this became the main focus of the appeal to POPLA, and evidence that a pay and display ticket had been purchased was duly provided. Only in PPS’s ‘Case Summary’ submission does it now emerge that this whole issue rests upon one letter missing at the start of the vehicle’s registration printed on the ticket.

Had PPS explained either in their original PCN, or when refusing the appeal against it, that the whole issue related to the printed registration on the ticket not being a complete match for the car’s plate, then this could have been addressed at the time. In an email sent to PPS prior to the appeal to POPLA, the appellant attached a copy of what they believed to be a valid ticket. Consequently, at that time, PPS were well aware that the appellant didn’t understand the significance of the incomplete printed registration. In their reply, PPS could easily have corrected this by explaining the issue as they perceived it. However, they elected not to do that. This has resulted in a lot of unnecessary work, both for the appellant and for POPLA. Had PPS been clear about the underlying reason for the PCN, this could have been addressed in the appeal to POPLA, and there would be no need for these lengthy additional comments. To view the email to PPS with the attached ticket, along with PPS’s reply, please see their POPLA Appeal Folder: ‘Appeals’, ‘3) Email from Appellant’ and ‘4) Letter to Appellant’.

The AOS Code of Practice (CoP) ruling 22.1 states: “Under the Code you must have procedures for dealing fairly, efficiently and promptly with any communication from the motorist” and in ruling 2.6 that: “. . . Members of the public should be able to expect that you will keep to the law, and act in a professional, reasonable and diligent way.” Failure to explain in a clear and transparent way why the PCN was issued and why the subsequent appeal was rejected is not acting in a fair, efficient, prompt, professional, reasonable and diligent way.

Valid Ticket
The ticket is incontrovertible proof that a parking period was paid for. The issue now appears to be simply whether or not the ticket is for the appellant’s car. That PPS’s computerised ANPR system was unable match the ticket to the car merely highlights the limitations of technology. The six registration characters printed on the ticket are not only correct, but appear in the correct order. Furthermore, the times on the ticket fit perfectly within the ANPR times. Therefore, although the registration may be incomplete, PPS are wrong to claim that no ticket for plate KB01 CDE was purchased. Even without the first letter, it remains obvious that the ticket with the printed registration B01 CDE is for the car with the plate KB01 CDE. At the very worst, it may be a minor, technical infringement of their T&Cs but, please see ‘Incomplete Entry’, below.

Incomplete Entry
PPS set great store by the fact that the car was parked in the car park on two previous occasions since the ANPR system was installed and that, on both occasions, the registration was entered in full. Therefore, they argue, the person buying the ticket must know how to use the machine. This is a totally false assumption, as it fails to take into account the fact that three people use the car and each of them may have passengers - any of whom could buy a ticket. Suffice to say, on 09/01/2016, the person buying the ticket had never used the machine before.

It’s reasonable to assume that no one buying a ticket would deliberately choose to omit the first letter of their registration, pay for it and then risk being issued with a PCN. That makes no sense. So, what might account for the incomplete entry? Perhaps it’s a simple case of ‘more haste less speed’ on the appellant’s part when keying in the car’s registration to the machine. But there are other possibilities, and these may have more to do with PPS’s equipment than they do with the competency of the appellant. One of them might be that since the previous ticket was purchased seventeen days earlier on 23/12/2015 that a fault developed with the machine’s keypad for the letter ‘K’. This is because another ticket for the same car was purchased from the same machine a week later on 16/01/2016, and that too has the first letter ‘K’ missing from the registration. This can clearly be seen in the facsimile copy of the ticket shown below.

(Image of ticket)

Regardless of who buys a ticket, PPS say the user has an opportunity to check that the correct registration has been entered before making payment and printing the ticket. In theory, this is correct. In practice, it is not always the case. The reason being, that the screen on the machine is not always fully visible, due to condensation forming on the inside of the display panel. This probably isn’t a problem in the summer or even later on in the day but, on a cold January morning, it’s a very real issue. At 10.26 AM on 09/01/2016, the screen was not fully visible for this very reason, so it was not possible to check that the registration details were entered correctly.

Ticket Machine Characteristics
Because the letter ‘K’ was also missing on the subsequent ticket purchased on 16/01/2016, it was reasonable to assume that this is a characteristic of the new machine. In other words, for reasons best known to PPS and the machine’s manufacturer, it only prints the last six characters of a car’s registration plate. A little surprising perhaps but, as six characters are more than sufficient to identify a vehicle, no more thought was given to it. Besides, car park customers cannot possibly be expected to know how these machines work and that the ticket should in fact display all seven characters. It is for these reasons that no mention of the incomplete printed registration was made in either the initial appeal to contest the PCN, or in the subsequent appeal to POPLA. It did not seem relevant, not least because as has been made clear already, until their ‘Case Summary’ submission, PPS themselves made no mention of it.

PCN and Data Protection
PPS supply a facsimile copy of the PCN in their POPLA Appeal Folder. Please refer to the right hand panel at the foot of page one, specifically to the second paragraph entitled ‘Data Protection’. The final line reads: “Premier Parking Solutions Ltd may also disclose data to a”. Clearly, this sentence is incomplete. Potentially, this is a serious breach of the CoP which may also put them in breach of the Data Protection Act. Ruling 12.3 of the CoP states: “12.3 You must use data from the DVLA only to carry out the parking control and enforcement activity for which you requested the data. You must not act as an agent to get data from the DVLA on behalf of a third party (for example a landowner or agent), unless that third party becomes a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions. If you do not keep to the Code requirement this could lead to your membership of the AOS and of the BPA being suspended or terminated.”

PPS don’t state who they disclose data to. Therefore, motorists, the BPA and POPLA can’t be sure that the unspecified third party is a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions Of course, this omission could just be a very minor, technical infringement of the CoP, a case of ‘more haste less speed’ perhaps when copying and pasting. Let’s hope that is the case. Either way, if an incomplete registration invalidates a ticket, then an incomplete description of PPS’s data protection policy must surely invalidate the PCN. At the very least, PPS are guilty of double standards and should not be permitted to have their cake and eat it.

Conclusion
Based on their unprofessional behaviour, and for the numerous breaches of the CoP cited in both the main appeal and in these ‘Additional Comments’, POPLA assessors are asked not only to rule in favour of the appellant, but also to report PPS to the BPA’s AOS Investigations Team for bringing the private parking industry in general - and the AOS scheme in particular - into disrepute. (NB: I’ve changed the car’s registration, although the first letter ‘K’ is correct and the basis of the whole case.)

Beewi, given that it’s the same machine in the same car park, I think you can also say there may be a problem with the machine - especially if the letter ‘K’ features in your registration. Also, if the ticket was purchased in the morning, claim that the display screen was not fully visible. I’ve sent you a PM with my POPLA case number so you can reference it in your appeal to POPLA and say that other motorists have had problem s with the same machine. Do also check the data protection wording on your PCN as you may be able to use the same argument as me.

In your shoes, I’d address the issue of you no longer having the ticket to prove that you paid for your parking with comments along these lines . . .

Although I no longer have the printed ticket, PPS will be able to confirm that payment of £?.?? was made soon after my vehicle entered the car park for a car with a registration plate that closely matches ____ ___ (insert your car’s reg’). Although the match may not be 100% exact, nonetheless, it will be obvious from the times and the close similarity in registration numbers that full payment was made and that the ticket was purchased for my vehicle.

Okay, now the not so good news. Although I won the appeal, it wasn’t on the grounds of anything I said in my original statement or in the ‘Additional Comments’. It’s because PPS failed to identify me as the driver. Copied below in grey is the decision statement from the POPLA appeals assessor . . .

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not purchase any parking time for the duration of stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the signage at the site is not complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has questioned the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system at the site. The appellant states that there was a parking ticket purchased to cover the duration of stay.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that “2) The notice must – f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the Notice to Keeper, where it states “If we do not receive details of the driver within 28 days of this notice, then if the charge is still outstanding we will have the right to recover payment from the keeper”. As such, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

Beewi - sorry this post is so long - I hope you find it helpful. Good luck with your appeal!

Umkomaas · 2 April 2016 at 11:17AM

Nice post @pulpotim1960, and great of you to be helping the OP via your recent experiences - not many people come back to do that, so I applaud you.

And well done in defeating PPS.

Premier Parking Solutions PCN

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free