Premier Park NTK

mrmojorisin04

Hi,

Firstly, thanks to everyone for all the valuable advice I have read so far. In accordance with the guidelines, I have waited for an NTK to turn up from Premier Park and will now send the first appeal template from the newbie thread.

Before I do that though, I just wanted to check something: the NTK seems to fail to conform to POFA in a few areas, e.g. they say you only have 14 days to appeal, they don't specifically identify the creditor, they increase the cost after 28 days (from the notice not from the day after) from £100 to £150 + undefined admin costs, and they don't offer any discount for prompt payment. Should I mention any of these things at this stage or just go with the standard template to get the appeal number?

Also, in preparation for the POPLA appeal, I know that I should go for signage, breach of contract, unlawful penalty charge, etc.. but are any of the following relevant factors too do you think:
- The PCN came about as a result of the vehicle being parked in an area with spaces allocated to specific companies on a business park. There was a valid permit on display in the vehicle for one of these companies but it was parked in one of several bays that are 'unmarked' as to which company own them.
- The landowner had not specifically requested Premier Park to actively patrol the area (although they do have various notices around so must have some contract in place)
- The PCN reference / vehicle reg combination was not recognised when attempting to review the photographic evidence so there wouldn't have been an opportunity to pay before now anyway. I have screenshots of the error messages at the time (over several days)

Many thanks in advance

Guys_Dad

Check with the BPA Web site. £150 exceeds the maximum permitted and the discount is not 40%. These points should get added but quote the BPA AOS guidelines.

Looks like a firm of chancers to me.

Post up your POFA appeal when you have it for comment.

mrmojorisin04

Thanks. It was £100 in the PCN, reduced to £60 within 28 days. Now they're saying it will increase again to an unknown amount (£150 + 'admin' costs) after a further 28 days.

Redx

mrmojorisin04 wrote: »

Thanks. It was £100 in the PCN, reduced to £60 within 28 days. Now they're saying it will increase again to an unknown amount (£150 + 'admin' costs) after a further 28 days.

that sounds more like a debt collector letter then a PPC letter , perhaps from debt recovery plus or rossendales or roxburghe or newlyns or one of the other myriad "back office" debt collection agencies ?

so I think that as you didnt reply to the NTD on the day its gone to a back office handler (quite a few parking companies do this)

mrmojorisin04

It definitely says NOTICE TO KEEPER on it, and it has appeared just over a month after the PCN. Shall I scan a copy in?

mrmojorisin04

Here it is I think:
imgur.com/Ao9DyR5

Coupon-mad

http://imgur.com/Ao9DyR5

Well unless there is more blurb on the back then they don't even mention any wording from the POFA 2012 which would establish 'keeper liability'. There's no warning that says that the keeper will become liable, etc., no standard blurb as such that we'd expect to see under POFA 2012. I would add a point #4 to the standard template first appeal in the NEWBIES thread, stating that no registered keeper liability applies because the NTK is wholly non-compliant. Don't expand on why, don't tip them off on what's missing (no need).

By the way they CAN issue a PCN that's not POFA 2012 compliant. It doesn't make it illegal, it just makes it an invoice which can only be aimed at the Driver - and good luck with that seeing as you aren't about the to tell them who that was! An easy win at POPLA awaits you, if you use our wording for that stage too.

mrmojorisin04

Awesome. Thanks all :beer:

mrmojorisin04

Hi, I now have my POPLA code. How's the following for an initial draft, would appreciate all comments or suggestions:

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

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

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 Misleading and unclear signage
4 Not met keeper liability requirements
5 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 'breach of 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 every type of breach (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.

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. Misleading and unclear signage
The alleged contravention is 'Invalid Permit'. The vehicle in question does display a permit for parking in allocated spaces on the site, and there was no signage on the space being used to indicate that it was not available for use under that permit. Other spaces on the site are clearly marked with a company name - this one and several others around it have no such marking.

Additionally, there is no clear signage displayed in the driver's line of sight at the entrance into that particular parking area, or at any point leading up to the space itself.

What signage does exist in this area is displayed on walls or fences at different parts of the site and therefore suggests that those are the controlled areas. Additionally, the inadequate signage that does exist has no lighting and doesn't have a reflective background, so therefore there are numerous ways that it is possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Premier Park Ltd.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.'

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication:
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company 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.

4. Premier Park Ltd has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply.
The 'Notice to keeper' issued on the xxxxxx fails to conform to the guidelines in POFA 2012 in a number of areas:
- There is no warning that the keeper will become liable
- It stipulates that there is only 14 days to appeal
- It does not specifically identify the creditor
- It specifies that the cost increases after 28 days from the notice, not from the day after
- It is ambiguous about the increased cost after 28 days, mentioning 'undefined admin costs'
- It does not offer any discount for prompt payment.

The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

5. 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.

This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Premier Park Ltd fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.

Yours faithfully



Should I provide photographic evidence of the signage and the NTK as well?

Thanks all

Triumphstag

"so therefore there are numerous was that it is possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Premier Park Ltd. "


Come again?
TS

mrmojorisin04

"so therefore there are numerous was that it is possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Premier Park Ltd. "


Come again?
TS

Sorry - 'numerous ways'