Premier Park PCN

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

Central Milton Keynes is not permit parking. The OP's case is especially odd as the council provides the permit so they haven't outsourced that bit of the operation to a PPC. The PPC then enforces under contract law. Surely Vinci don't enforce under contract law in Central Milton Keynes? If they did the RK could never be liable as it's not relevant land. Much of the parking in CMK is on street so it has to be proper Penalty Charge Notices rather than fake PCN from a PPC.

Actually, MK does have permit parking that covers Residents, Residents' visitors, car sharers, employees in CMK etc who have specific allocated bays and free parking in other normal bays.

These are, of course, proper Penalty Notices and not the private ones. I only commented on the point you made "BTW this sounds an odd setup where the parking place & permit is provided by the council but enforcement is by a private company." which, as your last post indicates, was with reference to private land rather than councils in general using PPCs to enforce their Penalty Charge Notices.

Carrie-Ann

I am grateful for all of these comments and will indeed be taking the matter up with Ben Bradshaw, Exeter City Council and anyone else mentioned.
One more ask pls.......... my neighbours "offence" was "Obstructive Parking. The vehicle was parked on private property in contravention of the site parking restrictions as displayed on the signage or permit" and there were photos taken by PP to make it look as though that area of the car park is not very wide. I have taken my own photos which show that you could drive the Coca Cola truck in there easily but how do I argue that point to POPLA?? Is it not our word against the "word" of PP?

Umkomaas

'What happened' is of no interest to POPLA. They won't make subjective decisions based on photographs depicting how wide or narrow a car park is, so please don't waste time on this as a major appeal point.

You might want to add your photos as supportive evidence of the way the PPC has dealt with this. But, if you think that POPLA will uphold your appeal on the basis of 'we believe the car park to be wider than depicted by the PPC and therefore their 'Obstructive Parking' charge is rejected' is just not going to happen.

Work on the legal and technical issues covered in the POPLA Decisions sticky and from the examples here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15

ronangel

Does anybody know the name of the parking company featured on BBC watchdog on Thursday 28th may 2015

thanks

Umkomaas

ronangel wrote: »

Does anybody know the name of the parking company featured on BBC watchdog on Thursday 28th may 2015

thanks

Try this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html

But if you want to discuss further, new thread please!

ronangel

Thanks thought it might have been this one

Carrie-Ann

This is my draft letter to POPLA if any of you guys could check it so I can get my neighbour to sign it...........


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]POPLA[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]PO Box 70748[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]London[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]EC1P 1SN[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]Dear POPLA adjudicator,

[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]POPLA appeal re Premier Park[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]charge (POPLA code **********)[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle reg **** *** who is not liable for the parking charge for several reasons. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]The vehicle was not improperly parked[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif] due to the fact that the car was not obstructing anyone from entering or leaving the car park. It also was not obstructing the use of the garages. The parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty and exceeded the appropriate amount.[/FONT]





[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]1[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]) Proprietary Interest[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
As the Registered Keeper, I do not believe that Premier Park has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Premier Park any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Premier Park's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Premier Park. I expect Premier Park to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code. [/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]I require Premier Park to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone at the Council) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable Premier Park to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]2) No breach of contract and no Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
Premier Park are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. [/FONT]






[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]3[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]) The charge is a penalty and not a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. [/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
The £60, rising to £100,charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
In the appeal Premier Park did not address this issue, and have not stated why they feel a £60 rising to £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Premier Park has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to at least £60. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]Premier Park have not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - which cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs.[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]The BPA Ltd (seeking advice on behalf of all AOS members, including UKPC) was warned about such charges being unenforceable by the Office of Fair Trading in 2013. The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]If a parking charge is imposed for breach under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]This transparently punitive charge by Premier Park is therefore unenforceable.[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION[/FONT][FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]
I ask that this appeal be allowed and respectfully request POPLA [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, serif]order the Operator to cancel this fake PCN.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, serif]


[/FONT]

Carrie-Ann

Post up your draft for help refining it.[/QUOTE]


I have posted my draft letter to POPLA if anyone could give it a quick onceover before I get my neighbour to sign it please?

ColliesCarer

Hi Carrie,

My suggestions on the POPLA draft are:

Number all your sub-headings and include them as a list after your 1st paragraph so the assessor can see at a glance what challenges are included.

Include a challenge about unclear/non-compliant signage therefore no contract with driver (don't worry if you're not sure whether the signs are or aren't compliant - including the challenge means they have to prove it - so extra work and extra chance for them to mess up)

In your proprietary interest challenge you need to include that they have no assignment of title that would give them the right to pursue payment of such charges through the courts in their own name.

You seem to have two headings for not a GPEOL challenge - consider combining these into one.

The first heading includes the words "No breach of Contract" but there are no supporting arguments on this point in the paragraph.

Also current BPA code of practice is version 5 and section 19.5 now reads

19.5 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 proportionate and commercially
justifiable. We would not expect this amount to
be more than £100. If the charge is more than this,
operators must be able to justify the amount in
advance.

So you need to also challenge that the charge is not commercially justifiable in your not a GPEOL point.

You mentioned in your first post that a valid residents pass was displayed so it's worth including that the vehicle was lawfully parked with the permission of the landowner by virtue of the residents pass issued directly by the landowner and displayed in the vehicle at the time of the alleged event.

My suggestion for how to do the above would be:

Get rid of your current heading 2) and move the paragraph in it to point 3)

Make point 2)
2) The alleged contravention did not occur - No breach of contract

and also move this paragraph from the beginning of your POPLA to it

The vehicle was not improperly parked due to the fact that the car was not obstructing anyone from entering or leaving the car park. It also was not obstructing the use of the garages. The parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty and exceeded the appropriate amount.

but change it to something like

The vehicle was lawfully parked with the permission of the landowner by virtue of the residents pass issued directly by the landowner and displayed in the vehicle at the time of the alleged event. Moreover, the vehicle was properly parked and I contend no obstruction was caused to vehicles entering/exiting either the car park or the associated garages.

Consequently, I contend there was no breach of the contract Premier Park may allege existed (which in any event is denied) between themselves and either the driver or the keeper.

And move this line to point 3) on no GPEOL

The parking 'charge' notice was nothing but a penalty and exceeded the appropriate amount.


HTH

Carrie-Ann

thanks ColliesCarer. all done and posted. fingers crossed