Premier Park appeal rejected - what now?!

GemmaDi

Ok here's the link (without the http:// in front!)

i66.photobucket.com/albums/h256/Gemma_Ditchfield/photo_zps1efd0562.jpg

now I have had another look at the area i'm pretty sure there's a number of points i could make about the area...

I have drawn a wonderful picture to hopefully explain...

i66.photobucket.com/albums/h256/Gemma_Ditchfield/IMG_3688_zpsf73fc7f7.jpg

so if you can see it you will see the sign was by the entrance to the church car park which is a private car park so it could be confused with being a sign for that car park.
there was no other sign. I was parked half on the cross hatch area and half on the 'footpath' (unpainted area to the side with a picture of a man on, I am assuming it is a footpath area) this is where I see cars parked in the day, I assume with the permits mentioned in the sign. this is another point of confusion ( maybe I am easily confused) but it seems to me the road marking are very unclear: first, yellow cross hatching is to be used in a box unction is it not, where you should not go if there isn't a clear exit the other side? yet this is not a through road. the other place ive seen it used is in car parks to show spaces where you cannot park...however this is the area where cars with permits do park, half on, half off it? so maybe the cross hatching is completely pointless, as is the little man as its private land so not an actual footpath?
also i do not know who the land belongs to, the court or the church but the fact that someone must have called a person to stick the pcn on my window suggests the church because it was occupied at the time

Stroma

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h256/Gemma_Ditchfield/photo_zps1efd0562.jpg

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h256/Gemma_Ditchfield/IMG_3688_zpsf73fc7f7.jpg

ColliesCarer

Gemma,
Pleas edit your original post asap to remove details in the letter you have posted that can identify you and your location. The PPC's do trawl the forums. Do this asap because using the info combined with your drawing I have been able to pinpoint where u where parked using google maps.
Anyway it looks to me like the land is associated with the courts - you could confirm this by checking the permits of cars parked there.

GemmaDi

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Gemma,
Pleas edit your original post asap to remove details in the letter you have posted that can identify you and your location. The PPC's do trawl the forums. Do this asap because using the info combined with your drawing I have been able to pinpoint where u where parked using google maps.
Anyway it looks to me like the land is associated with the courts - you could confirm this by checking the permits of cars parked there.

thanks i think it should be ok now.

ColliesCarer

Yes that's fine now

GemmaDi

if i appeal based on the fact it was unclear where i could/couldn't park because the sign was next to the church car park entrance, and that they hopefully wont want to prove they have authority to issue tickets, do you think i have a chance? i am sure premier park may say something about the cross hatching showing where to park or not, but i know for a fact that cars with permits park on the cross hatching, and it is irrelevant anyway on private land isn't it? i am sure i have a good point somewhere i just cant find it! I can't use the damages point because it is a contractual sign is that right? i have no clue how much a permit would cost so can i argue that the charge is punitive?

4consumerrights

Firstly stop fretting a moment - contractual based appeals can be won on the basis that they are penalties - need special wording.

Now the sign says that VAT is included - but there is no VAT registration number on the signage - so I want you to look carefully at all paperwork sent and see if there is a VAT number anywhere printed on it.

Ideally if you could scan up a redacted parking charge notice.

Stroma

They also mention 'terms and conditions' on the signage, so I think that suggests that it's not contractual, doesn't it?

4consumerrights

Stroma wrote: »

They also mention 'terms and conditions' on the signage, so I think that suggests that it's not contractual, doesn't it?

Not necessarily

Combined Parking Solutions mentions terms but is most definitely a contractual charge due to wording.

However in this case:


They also mention by contravening the terms you are entering a contractual charge - you cannot enter a contract by committing a contravention or breach.

This one will be easy to get around - but for extra proof - the VAT number (or lack of here) would be good.

GemmaDi

hi, surprisingly they actually do have a VAT number