Premier park extortionate charge

digannio

Hi
A friend parked in a retail car park and received a parking charge notice from the above. It alleges the car was left 23 minutes over the two free hours and she must pay £100 (or £60 if paid within 14 days). There are photos of the car arriving and leaving the car park but no timings on the actual pictures, just a statement of the alleged time of arriving and leaving. She doesn't have proof of the timings but believes she left it for less than the time alleged.

Clearly the charge is ridiculously high. She was considering an appeal on the grounds that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate or loss and was unenforceable. But she notes that Premier have several examples on their site stating that argument is not accepted by Popla and such arguments are rejected and Premier are able to justify the loss. They use copies of letters from Popla showing this outcome.

Does this mean an appeal is pointless and the charge should just be paid, however exhorbitant it clearly is? What do you reckon is the best way forward. Ignore, appeal or just pay up?

bazster

Some time ago Premier got one or two lucky wins at PoPLA with rookie adjudicators, but since then it's been business as usual where they lose every time. Follow the standard approach as per the Newbies thread.

digannio

Will do just that. Thanks.

Ryan_Bryan

Beware the fact that Premier do court very occasionally. If you take it to POPLA your case should be easily won on GPEOL but Premier seem to have a habit of forgetting to send POPLA evidence to the Appellant.

digannio

I think Premier will be trying to argue that the driver accepted the terms of a contract by parking there and they are trying to enforce the contract which the signs say allow for a £100 payment should the two-hour period be exceeded.

I think they will probably say that the parking charge is not a penalty (only enforcing the contract) and therefore there is no need to prove that the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. How do you get around that?

bazster

digannio wrote: »

I think Premier will be trying to argue that the driver accepted the terms of a contract by parking there and they are trying to enforce the contract which the signs say allow for a £100 payment should the two-hour period be exceeded.

I think they will probably say that the parking charge is not a penalty (only enforcing the contract) and therefore there is no need to prove that the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. How do you get around that?

You follow the Newbies thread. We've seen it all before.

digannio

I read somewhere that Premier claim a Popla appeals success rate of over 90%. Can that possibly be true?

bazster

digannio wrote: »

I read somewhere that Premier claim a Popla appeals success rate of over 90%. Can that possibly be true?

85% on the last published figures, so 90% is possible. So what? It's not a lottery, you get your appeal right and you win.

If you're going to keep coming back and fishing for reasons why you are going to lose then I for one am done here. Either follow the advice you've been given or wimp out and pay, your call.

digannio

Steady on there. The ball is already rolling for a future Popla appeal and plenty of research has been done on here. It was just a story I came across while looking at various sites and wondered if what they were claiming was true. Your "wimp out" and "I'm done here" is a little OTT for someone new to all this and just getting some background.

LinMar

Hi i just won an appeal for not displaying a ticket on the basis of no genuine estimate of loss, £50 charge -see my post just now. your charge is seriously excessive so it could be worth using the standard text i found on here to try that ? good luck

Coupon-mad

digannio wrote: »

I read somewhere that Premier claim a Popla appeals success rate of over 90%. Can that possibly be true?

Yes, quite possibly; people are naïve! Consider that most people write normal mitigating circumstances rubbish appeals. Who cares what their average win rate is against the public at large? We can't help those people if they don't Google the scammers and come here like you did.

Cases we help with, win every time v Premier Park. 100% win rate.

Read the Newbies thread. Look at stuff like, was the NTK sent so it arrived by day 15? Consider the fact that the NTK may not 'identify the creditor' (check for that word), and that it certainly does not 'specify the period of parking' because it cannot. There is no evidence of parking time. Arrival in moving traffic, and leaving at the exit, does not disprove the possibility that the car was there for two visits. Don't dismiss that point of appeal, it is covered thoroughly in some ANPR examples in the Newbies thread linky (notably a ParkingEye one I seem to recall, makes that point about ANPR being flawed and not being proof to a keeper that the driver didn't make 2 trips!). Very very hard for a PPC to rebut, if you include the BPA's own words about the problems with this 'new technology' as I did in the appeals I am thinking of...

Make sure your no GPEOL paragraph is very strong (look at the links in post #3 of the Newbies thread - the hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA'). Your no GPEOL argument needs to include the fact there was no initial loss.

The friend will win - first rule is DO NOT IMPLY WHO WAS DRIVING! Use the first appeal in post #1 of the Newbies thread for this stage (unchanged). Then the friend needs to look at the examples I mentioned and build her super-duper winning POPLA appeal in readiness. We will help if you show us the draft at that stage.

No need to show us the draft first appeal as it's copy & paste from the sticky. Easy at this early stage, no need to draft anything, just copy the template.