POPLA Appeal Draft - Premier Park

Bornem

Hi all,

I've read the stickies and found this forum very useful. I've constructed this based on previous appeals/drafts but just wanted to see if this is likely to be a winner (I've spared the letter intro).

I basically received two PCNs on different dates for parking in my resident spot without my permit on display - it genuinely fell off the dash but I know mitigating circumstances don't cut it. This appeal will be sent twice just with different references.

Just to double check the wording on the refusal letter "breach of the advertised terms and conditions" - am I right in thinking I can get Premier Park on no GPEOL?

The appeal points:

1) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2 - H) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the "creditor". The operator must specifically use words to the effect of " The creditor is[...] and yet they have failed to do so. The keeper of the vehicle is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. The notice to keeper also fails to meet timing regulations set out in 22.7 of the BPA's code of practice. Specifically the keeper is allowed 28 days to appeal, not the insufficiently short "14 days" provided.

2) Premier Park Ltd have no contract with the landowner and no legal status to enforce charges. Premier Park Ltd do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letter, no evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Premier Park are entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I request that POPLA please check whether Premier Park Ltd have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or that someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

3) The amount being claimed does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the land owner or to Premier Park Ltd. The charge amount is disproportionate to any costs that may have been incurred and as of yet, Premier Park Ltd has failed to provide a full breakdown of costs that resulted directly from the alleged breach. I therefore once again require Premier Park to produce a list of costs and as to how they are calculated. This cannot lawfully include operational day-to-day running costs such as staff, signs, cameras, uniforms etc.

4) With regard to point 3 (although not on display) the driver was in possession of a valid permit at the time of the contravention of which I have attached a photograph. If for example, all of the 'resident only' spaces were occupied by valid residents, regardless of whether permits were displayed, Premier Park Ltd/the landowner would still have incurred zero loss. When empty these resident spaces cannot be re-offered in exchange for fees to those who have no association with the building, making the charge punitive.

5) Premier Park Ltd's signage is not compliant with BPA Code of Practice. Upon entering the car park no signage is immediately present to warn drivers and the lack of lighting makes it extremely difficult to view the signs at night.

Umkomaas

Have you made 2 separate initial appeals to the PPC and received 2 separate POPLA verification codes from them?

You can't appeal to POPLA without having done the above.

da_rule

Be careful with point 4, because it implies you know who the driver is. Maybe reword it to: "There is a valid residents permit in place for this vehicle..."

As Umkomaas said, if you have had two parking notices each one needs to be appealed both to the parking company and then POPLA separately.

Bornem

Yep - already sent my soft appeal to the PPC and received two separate POPLA codes.

Thanks da_rule, I'll change point 4. Do you think I should also remove the bit about sending a photo of the permit as this also implies I know the driver?

da_rule

Bornem wrote: »

Yep - already sent my soft appeal to the PPC and received two separate POPLA codes.

Thanks da_rule, I'll change point 4. Do you think I should also remove the bit about sending a photo of the permit as this also implies I know the driver?

I don't think it does. If the permit is left in the car it just means that you know theres a permit.

Bornem

Ok. Well I'll send them a scanned copy of the permit to prove that the driver actually has one/was in possession of one at the time. Although not on the dash in both cases, one of the photos taken by the PPC from the side window actually just shows the edge of pass by the front passenger seat of the car where it had fallen off.

Do you think that is worth including in the appeal?

It is only just visible in the photo - it was raining on the day and the window is covered in water drops which reflected most of the flash they used but you can clearly see an orange 'pass like' thing.

da_rule

POPLA do have on their website that they will not consider matters where a parking ticket ha 'blown out of view', I would assume its the same for parking permits.

Redx

stick to the main appeal points that popla will consider , to be on the safe side

and bullet point all the headers in numbered order just above the main body of the appeals , so the assessor can easily find them

Bornem

That was my plan Redx. I didn't include them/the letter intro on here to save everyone reading through them.

I appreciate the feedback and will be sending these off tonight via the POPLA website.