Premier Park appeal rejected - what now?!

Stroma

Can you post that number up for us

4consumerrights

OK - being VAT registered is only half the battle anyway - they would have to supply a VAT invoice for the charge (which they didn't - I presume?)

Have you checked the POPLA code - ie that it is valid and how long you have to use it - Parking Cowboys website checker (linked in Newbie thread)

Your POPLA appeal will be worded along:

NON -COMPLIANT SIGNAGE (BPA) -WORDING AMBIGUITY
NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVER MADE.

UNFAIR TERMS/CONSUMER REGS etc.

NO VALID CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER/LOCUS TO PURSUE CHARGES THROUGH COURT.

PARKING CHARGE NO GPEOL. PUNITIVE PENALTY NO LOSS TO LANDOWNER, OFT WORDING.

Please confirm date for POPLA appeal and either Coupon or myself can pm you with an exact POPLA appeal wording.

GemmaDi

thanks so much VAT number is 922496120

date for appeal is 26th march

Stroma

So it's real

Member State GB
VAT Number GB 922496120
Date when request received 2014/03/05 00:48:34
Name PREMIER PARK LTD
Address 1 CHARTER HOUSE
DAWLISH BUSINESS PARK
DAWLISH
DEVON
EX7 0NH
Consultation Number

Coupon-mad

GemmaDi wrote: »

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?

Why is this being made so complicated when clearly that is not a contractual fee sign as it talks about 'contravening' (= breach). If course you use the appeal paragraph about ''it's not a GPEOL'' which in fact is worth including even for a contractual fee case (which this is not). Why would anyone think that sign communicates a 'contractual fee to allow you to park at that 'price'' just because it has the word 'contractual' on it?

If you have adapted a template POPLA appeal from here and included the usual winning words, i.e. 'no GPEOL' and 'no standing/authority', then you will win at POPLA.

GemmaDi

ok, here is my letter does it sound winning?

POPLA Code:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Premier Park Ltd
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

As the registered keeper, I received a parking charge notice from Premier Park Ltd requiring payment of a charge of £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of parking "in contravention of the site parking restrictions as displayed on ther signage or permit".

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 Signage
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident. Premier Park notices allege 'contravening terms' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that Premier Park charge the same lump sum for a 5 minute overstay as they would for 5 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling) it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The BPA Code of Practice states: "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
I require Premier Park Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the "charge" was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd, etc) may not be included in these pre-estimate of loss.
This charge from Premier Park as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
2. No authority to levy charges
Premier Park Ltd do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing, nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.
3. Signage
The one sign at the site is positioned on a wall belonging to a private car park, adjacent to a gateway on the other side of which is a 'private car park' sign. This suggests that the sign relates to the above mentioned car park, rather than the empty piece of land that my car was parked on. There was also not a sign on the wall that my vehicle was parked adjacent to. The signage is not lit and the writing is small, so in the dark, when the alleged offense occured, it is difficult to read. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including "You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle" . In addition, the sign mentions that by merely entering the site, to which there is no gate or defined entrance, you are automaticatccly contraventn the terms. However the BPA Code of Practice states that "If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you." Any alleged contract could only 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. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Premier Park have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording "CHARGE NOTICE" in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
Yours faithfully

　
THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Coupon-mad

That's looking winning, yes, I would just add to these bits (change the headings as shown and I would use the wording below about the standing/contract):


2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts or make contracts with drivers.
Premier Park Ltd do not own the land and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to pursue a driver or keeper in the courts in their own name as creditor. If a firm is merely contracted to 'issue parking charges' on site then it does not follow that they also have any legal standing which could impact on visiting drivers beyond the mere placing of a piece of paper on a windscreen. The Operator must show their landowner contract to POPLA and myself, unredacted (not just a site agreement slip of paper - the whole contract is required for scrutiny of all terms, conditions, rights and obligations as well as any restrictions and charges). In order to rebut my assertions, the Operator would have to produce a contract which - at the time of the parking incident - specifically assigned this Operator the status to make contracts in their own right, with drivers. It must also meet the BPA CoP requirements which must include the right in the contract for this Operator to pursue any parking charges in the courts in their own name.

3. Signage - unlit and unclear so no contract formed with driver.

GemmaDi

Oh hang on I've just noticed another sign...although the fact that I have been looking at the area for the last few months and only just noticed it shows that it's not the most obvious of signs!

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter.

GemmaDi

update on the situation:
I have just realised that my dad had never actually passed on ownership of the car to me, so it is still his car... so do I need to actually do anything? He hasn't received a letter about the fine, but is that because I wrote to appeal as soon as i got the PCN on my window? They replied to my postal address which has absolutely nothing to do with the car, with the POPLA code. The code is only valid until the end of this month so I am tempted to write to them but actually do I need to?