Premier Park post 1st October

esmerobbo

The ones they highlight are ones were people have taken them too court for clamping. They advertise the ones they win, however what about the ones they lose.

Never heard of a case for this company going to court here or on CAG or Pepipoo, doesn't mean there hasn't been any but!!!!!!!

hoohoo

nicechap wrote: »

Have I read their news page right?

Premier Parking claim to have won 82 county cases in 2011 - yet figures from Ministry of Justice said there were only 49 cases for all PPCs?

Premier Park or Premier Parking?

Couldn't find it on their news page

http://www.premierpark.co.uk/News.htm

longtimelurkersam

I had my POPLA acknowledgement which requires you to have a Adobe Acrobat reader. Nothing like making it more challenging for the consumer.

Should get my appeal outcome circa 10th December.

longtimelurkersam

POPLA appeal in......refused but sort of expected.

21stDecember

The Operator issuedparking charge notice number xx arising out of the presence at xx, on 17October 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx

The Appellant appealedagainst liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor consideredthe evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasonsare as set out.

In order to avoid anyfurther action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should bemade within 14 days.

Details of how to paywill appear on previous correspondence from the operator. 21 December 2012

Reasons for theAssessor’s Determination

At 13.33 on 17 October2012, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because Operator’s employeecould not see a valid permit on display in the vehicle with registration mark xx. The employee then took a number of photographs of the vehicle. The Appellantdoes not appear to dispute this.

The Operator’s case isthat the terms and conditions for parking are displayed on the site, and statethat only valid permit holders may park in allocated bays, and that permitsmust be fully displayed in the windscreen. Copies of the conditions have beenproduced. They also state that a failure to comply with the restrictions meanthat a parking charge notice may be issued.

The Appellant maderepresentations but does not offer any submissions on the facts of the appeal.The Operator has, however, enclosed a copy of the Appellant’s representations,where the Appellant submitted that it was an oversight that the permit had beenremoved and not replaced into the vehicle. The Appellant therefore appears toadmit that there was not a valid permit on display in the vehicle at the timethe parking charge notice was issued.

The Operator rejectedthe representations, as set out in the copy of the notice of rejection theysent, because no valid permit was displayed on the windscreen. The Operatorsubmits that the photographs taken by the employee show that the permit was notvisible.

Although the Appellantdoes not make any factual submissions whatsoever, he does make various legalsubmissions. One such submission is that the parking charge is not a genuinepre-estimate of loss, and that the Operator has not actually suffered any losson this occasion.

A further point made bythe Appellant in relation to whether the parking charge is a genuinepre-estimate of loss is that the charge is actually a penalty.

Another statement bythe Appellant is that if the parking charge amounts to a genuine pre-estimateof loss, the amount of the loss should not change from £60 for the first 14days and rise to £100 thereafter.

In addition, theAppellant states that if the parking charge is a genuine preestimate of loss,the amount should vary for different breaches of the terms and conditions, forexample parking over a white line or overstaying. 3 21 December 2012

The legal submissions of the Appellant set out above are notaccepted. The Appellant parked the vehicle in the car park, thereby agreeing tothe contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. These included thecondition that only permit holders may park in an allocated area, and thatpermits must be fully displayed.

Another term of thecontract was that if the vehicle was parked without complying with the conditionsof the contract, the motorist agreed to pay a parking charge of £100 (or £60 ifpaid within 14 days). The Appellant appears to believe that the charge has beenissued for breaching the contract, but in actual fact, the Operator is seekingto enforce the contract. This is by seeking payment of the charge which theAppellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle at TheCrescent. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.

The parking charge istherefore not classed as damages or a penalty for breach, either of which mightbe linked to actual loss resulting from a breach and would need the Operator toprove that the parking charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Appellant nothaving disputed the facts, I must find as a fact that, at the material time, avalid permit was required to be displayed on the vehicle but was not visible.This was a breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, on thisparticular occasion, the appeal must be refused.

Shona Watson

Assessor

ministox5

so does that me you lost & gotta pay up ??

BASFORDLAD

ministox5 wrote: »

so does that me you lost & gotta pay up ??

No it just means you ignore it from now on.

spacey2012

I have never read a bigger bunch of kangaroo court twaddle in all my life.
that is it confirmed beyond ANY doubts
POPLA are a set up kangaroo court, bought and paid for by the parking industry.
What a completely and utter crock of nonsense they have concocted up.
Shona Watson ? shame on you for taking money from these crooks that they have scammed from the sick, elderly, infirm and poorly educated in society.
Shame, shame on you .

Half_way

Ask a daft question time, does the lease agrrement say anything about parking?

longtimelurkersam

Half_way wrote: »

Ask a daft question time, does the lease agrrement say anything about parking?

I only rent so dont have access to teh lease agreement but am getting it for my potential day in court if Premier have the cojones to go for it.

BASFORDLAD

You can only hope Sam
Am hoping Hasbeen @ ukcps tries it on to