Private parking ticket at home address - Premier Park

Umkomaas

matthruba wrote: »

A suitable response to this requires too much effort.

Don't let it worry you too much, you take it easy while we regulars spend hours each day, week, month and year reading up on contract law, consumer protection law, every thread placed on here, Pepipoo, CAG, responding to all of them, often within minutes of posting, often into the early hours of the morning, getting almost everyone out of THEIR problem, more often than not without the mere courtesy of people getting back to let us know their outcome.

You might wonder, if you can bother getting your mind to consider, why we get frustrated, having given the best advice to help YOU get off YOUR charge, you're (by your own admission) too lazy to bother following it.

If you want to have a read of a relevant thread before you switch off your bedroom light, read here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4765904

matthruba

Umkomaas wrote: »

Don't let it worry you too much, you take it easy while we regulars spend hours each day, week, month and year reading up on contract law, consumer protection law, every thread placed on here, Pepipoo, CAG, responding to all of them, often within minutes of posting, often into the early hours of the morning, getting almost everyone out of THEIR problem, more often than not without the mere courtesy of people getting back to let us know their outcome.

You might wonder, if you can bother getting your mind to consider, why we get frustrated, having given the best advice to help YOU get off YOUR charge, you're (by your own admission) too lazy to bother following it.

If you want to have a read of a relevant thread before you switch off your bedroom light, read here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4765904

Speak for yourself princess, I've not seen anybody else complaining and I've certainly put in much more leg work than many others!

You've obviously got too much time on your hands. And if you didn't waste so much time trying to caress your ego, perhaps you'd get to be bed at a reasonable hour

I'd comment on each point of your post and justify myself but frankly I'm also too lazy to do that.

Doesn't it say in the rules somewhere about staying on topic and not hijacking threads? I mean I wouldn't know personally as I'm too lazy to read them but most forums have something like that written in to their rules.

If you'd like to pursue with your complaint, please feel free to private message me and we'll get in to the nitty gritty there shall we? Please do not respond here and continue to waste time, effort and forum space on completely unrelated and irrelevant comments to the topic in question.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas is one of the foremost main regular posters who helps people on this forum!

I think this might be a misunderstanding though - do you mean the one-liner was an auto-response that you ignored? I would also have ignored an auto-response.

Wait to see what reply you get to your challenge, and I feel you need to reconsider your response to Umkomaas!

matthruba

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Umkomaas is one of the foremost main regular posters who helps people on this forum!

I think this might be a misunderstanding though - do you mean the one-liner was an auto-response that you ignored? I would also have ignored an auto-response.

Wait to see what reply you get to your challenge, and I feel you need to reconsider your response to Umkomaas!

That's correct yes.

4consumerrights

matthruba wrote: »

Thanks for that, appreciate it. I had a one line email response saying 'Please describe the area in which you refer to', even though I had sent a very thorough email including photos. I was lazy and decided not to pursue it!

Matthruba:
It's a shame that this comment may have been misconstrued and a little spat occurred between yourself and Umkomaas. However, if a regular poster sees an admission that the OP has been LAZY when a considerable amount of time and effort is put in to help the numerous posts and threads which appear daily, then a reaction is inevitable.

There are only a few regular posters on the forum who spend literally hours each day helping people like yourself get these charges cancelled - and not for some ego trip which you state, but because we genuinely care. Some regulars have had to endure threats of legal action and violence from these parking companies, but still try and assist.

All the regulars have been in your situation and had to face a parking charge at some point. Umkomaas is one of them and I certainly believe you owe an apology here as some of your comments were uncalled for.


With regards to your situation and Bristol city council - it is certainly worth pursuing and may even aid the riddance of Premier Park at your location at some point.

Should your parking charge not be cancelled as a result of my earlier suggested letter, then you will need to ensure you have a POPLA code and make an appeal - the code is time sensitive and is your golden ticket to getting the charge cancelled.

I don't know how long you will be living there, but as Longtimelurkersam states Premier do engage in entrapment situations by parking cars to deprive parking spaces, so you may experience further charges down the line.

You could also file a complaint with the Estate Agent - as I bet they didn't mention the parking company did they? And of course the landlord.

matthruba

Honestly are you still going on about this?!

As I have said in numerous posts previously I appreciate the help I have been given.

If I had not used the word lazy and said 'I decided not to peruse the council' would we be where we are now? Probably not. As coupon-mad said, she would have ignored the auto reaponse like I did.

You've all jumped on the 'we are the regulars' bandwagon and put me in the 'newbie lazy' category when I've actually done a lot of work on this myself, I simply decided not to peruse a suggestion that was made to contact the council at this time as something not relevant to the appeal letter.

Regular poster or not, 1 post or 283726289 posts, I treat everybody the same and as you say, a reaction is inevitable (didn't say otherwise) well so is a retaliation to that reaction.

I am bored to tears of this unnecessary drama now. I have said that if what's his face wants to PM me he can, otherwise why are we still discussing it?

An apology is not going to happen, if anything I am owed one for being singled out by you lot.

I'll tackle the rest of my quest with premier park alone, but thank you to all of those who have contributed thus far.

spacey2012

The first step is a soft appeal, something like dear parking scammers the registered keeper denies any liability to charge number 976259052 as the vehicle in question was parked upon the highway in an area covered by a local council traffic regulation order as they have confirmed, they are investigating the issuing of a contractual parking charge upon the highway and no doubt will be in touch.

They are also investigating via the planning department the fixation of illegal sign to street furniture and again, no doubt they shall be in touch.
Case law clearly states any traffic regulation order suspends to a clearly defined legal boundary, as in this case the area constitutes the public highway.

As you have no authority to issue any notice upon the public highway I shall offer you the opportunity to rectify your mistake by cancelling the charge.
I also place you on notice that any costs occurred for not doing so shall be laid against the parking scammers.

This constitutes legal served notice of appeal under POFA and you shall forward a POPLA code with your rejection.

Yours the registered keeper of the vehicle in receipt of parking charge -9870987

matthruba

So as expected, Premier Park have rejected my soft appeal and have provided me with a POPLA code. I have tweaked Coupon-Mad's letter from another post to suit my circumstances which I hope to get sent off today. Hopefully it will be good enough to win the POPLA appeal! Pasted below for those interested:

Dear POPLA

APPEAL RE: PREMIER PARK CHARGE
PCN: ******
VEHICLE REG: ******
POPLA CODE: ******

I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking
'charge' notice exceeds the appropriate amount. Premier Park is requiring payment from me as the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I say they have not met all the conditions imposed by this Act and so there is no obligation or liability on me at all. In addition they have failed to show that this standard fixed charge in the area in which the vehicle was parked is a genuine preestimate of loss, have not formed any fair contract with the driver to justify the amount demanded and have not complied with all aspects of the BPA Code of Practice.

INSUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION
I wrote to Premier Park, asking for them to elaborate on the alleged contravention of ‘Parking In No Parking Area’. They have failed to provide me with an explanation. The signs, which are inadequate and unclear (another of my appeal points mentioned later on) show that a permit must be displayed at all times and that the vehicle must be parked in a parking bay only where present. As you can see from the evidence, a permit was displayed and as there were no parking bays available, the vehicle was parked in the area pictured. Where is the contravention? See attached for full details of sign.

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
Premier Park have also not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name. Premier Park must provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists). Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Premier Park the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.

UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS
I believe the signs and any core parking terms Premier Park are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into the area in which the vehicle was parked. You can see from the photos attached how unclear the signs are.

You can see from the evidence that the vehicle was not parked in a car park. It was parked on an open walk way to the front of the property. The sign, which was not seen upon parking or the vehicle would not have been parked there is affixed to street furniture which is too high and too small. Because the area in which the ticket was issued is not a car park, there is no formal entrance to this area. Premier Park cannot be sure how a vehicle will enter this area and therefore cannot be sure that their signs will be seen. As you can see from the photo evidence, the sign is facing towards the building and the street. What if this area was approached from the side? The photos show how small the signs are and how unclear they would be in the dark. They are only more visible in the photo because of the flash of the camera. It is also unclear as to where the private land begins and ends. There are no boundaries. I asked for this to be clarified in my appeal letter however this was not done. How can a driver agree/disagree to entering in to a contract if they do not know what part of the land they park in will enter them in to the contract or not? I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this ‘car park’ and any consequences for breach. Premier Park needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. So in addition, because the signs fail to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. Premier Park do not provide signage of sufficient written text size or at a suitable height to be read from the vehicle at the ‘entrance’ or at any location on the premises. They may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park on poles but this does not meet the requirements for consideration when forming the alleged contract.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Premier Park are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial
appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular parking area for this particular 'contravention'. Operators cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.
It is not clear whether Premier Park are suggesting that the driver has not properly displayed a permit or that the vehicle should have been parked in a bay but in either case any ‘loss' would be minimal, not of the monetary amount being asked for.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket.

BREACH OF UNFAIR TERMS ACT 1997 and BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
Finally, I believe Premier Park are in breach of the Unfair Terms Act 1997 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR):

Schedule 2, paragraph 1:
...terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation.
Unfair Terms

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary
to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising
under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in
advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

As such, and because of the evidence in my appeal, I believe POPLA should order that this unjustified charge is cancelled.

Coupon-mad

That should be fine, send it off I reckon. It's good to see you have worked some detail about the car park signage in.

matthruba

Cool. Do I need to send a copy of the appeal I wrote to Premier Park or will they have sent that?