Premier Park PCN

JRH999

Thanks for everyone's help, it's going in the post today. I expect to receive another one shortly for the second visit so will send off another appear.

JRH999

I had my rejection letter at the weekend, I'm still waiting on a reply from the council so will push them again, here is my POPLA letter (mostly taken from other posts on here), if anyone has any comments they would be greatly appreciated.

"As the keeper of my vehicle I received a PCN from Premier Park Ltd for my vehicle being parked at XXXXXXXX CAR PARK, TOWN on the XXX of XXX 2015, the PCN was issues on the XXX of XXX 2015.

As the keeper, I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
2. A lack of Premier Park Ltd’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
3. Land owner signage stating it is a ‘free’ car par park as has been the case for many years.
4. The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
5. Lack of planning permission for ANPR camera and signage


1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge (£1 overnight change) is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.

In this case Premier Park Ltd has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge is arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that Premier Park charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract

Therefore, without a genuine breakdown of the actual or pre-estimated costs, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge be dismissed.

2. A lack of Premier Park Ltd’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
It is believed that Premier Park does not own this car park and are merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, since no evidence has been provided it is believed that they are not lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver due to the fact that they do not own nor have interest/assignment of the title of the land in question. Therefore, I ask that Premier Park be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must be pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

3. The car park in question has been free for many years, I enclose a photo taken after the PCN was issued which shows the land owners sign clearly stating “Free Parking” and pointing into the car park in question, the event in question occurred in the evening, the landowners (XXXXXXX Town Council) sign is lit and very visible, however Premier Park Ltd signs are not lit, and therefore were not clearly visible at the time. Also I enclose minutes from a XXXXX Town Council (dated before the event) in which XXXXX County Council bring the “Free Parking” sign to the attention of the town council and clearly recommend that this sign be reworded (135.d – Sign No 21).


4. The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by Premier Park in respect of the alleged event. There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms. The Appellant submits that, if signs were present on the day of the alleged event, they were not prominent enough to form a valid contract. The Appellant submits that no detailed terms relating to Premier Park Ltd’s onerous, inflated penalty charge were visible, and it is therefore apparent that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

5. Planning permission has not been obtained for both the ANPR camera and also signage which have been installed by Premier Park, I have included a copy of an email from XXXXX Council Planning which confirms this and the fact that both items (signage and camera) do require planning permission. XXXXXX Council planning have passed this information on to the land owners, XXXXX Town Council.

Taking all the above points into consideration, I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct Premier Park to cancel the Charge.

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case."

Edna_Basher

I’d be tempted to relegate the GPEOL point further down your list and instead, include Premier’s non-compliant Notice to Keeper as Point 1 of your POPLA appeal - an Operator’s non-compliance with POFA 2012 is now quite a common reason for POPLA to uphold appeals.

I suggest something along the lines of:


1. The Operator’s Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) did not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to be able to be able to invoke keeper liability, the Operator’s NTK had to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why it failed to do so.

• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a), the NTK did not specify a period of parking to which the notice related. The NTK specified the date and times when the Operator’s ANPR equipment recorded the vehicle entering and leaving the site; however, these times do not equate to the actual period of parking.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (b), the NTK did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (e), the NTK did not contain a statement that the creditor did not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, inviting the keeper (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (f), the NTK did not contain a statement warning the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given, (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of POFA are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.
• Contrary to the requirement of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (h), the NTK did not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

Consequently, the Operator has forfeited any right to keeper liability under POFA 2012.


Our most recent (May 2015) NTK from Premier Park was non-complaint for all of the above reasons; however, you may wish to double-check these against your own NTK just in case Premier Park have changed the wording of their NTKs in the last month or so.

JRH999

Hi,

The parking is £1 overnight, so would the first bullet point apply?

I've also included a copy of the NTK (hopefully with all confidential details removed!), I'm not sure any of the bullet points you mention apply to this NTK, although happy to be corrected!

NTK is here:
http://postimg.org/image/3oqi3vh95/

Edna_Basher

I've had a look at your NTK. The wording is identical to that on the Premier NTK we received back in May so I think you can reasonably chuck in all of these points as to why the NTK was non-compliant.

JRH999

Thanks - How did you get in with yours, or is it still with POPLA?

Guys_Dad

It is also worth checking which council has a contract with the PPC. You say you contacted" the council" but they said it was Town Council land, so you need to check the contract to see who the PPC client actually is.

You will get a copy of the contract (redacted) prior to the POPLA hearing or the PPC will lose (see latest half dozen POPLA DECISIONS on the sticky thread of the same name).

Make sure you do this and if it is not the town council, then supplementary to POPLA with land registry proof.

JRH999

Hi,

Yes, I got the contract today, it is between the town council and premier park.

Guys_Dad

JRH999 wrote: »

Hi,

Yes, I got the contract today, it is between the town council and premier park.

OK - so what, if any, limitations are imposed on the PPC?

It also seems to me that this is not relevant land for POPLA.

POFA 2012 states

3 (1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land
(including land above or below ground level) other than:
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense
(within the meaning of section 329(1) of the
Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by
a traffic authority;

“traffic authority” means each of the following:
(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) Transport for London;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London;
(e) the council of a county, county borough, London
borough or district;
(f) a parish or community council;

POPLA web site says

The Act also introduced the concept of 'keeper liability' for vehicles parked on private land. However, for this, there had to be an independent appeals service, provided by funding from the parking industry.

That independent service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA.

Other regulars may wish to comment.

I am not sure it helps you, though as POPLA are, at least, an appeal service.

Should OP go to pepipoo?

Edna_Basher

JRH999 wrote: »

Thanks - How did you get in with yours, or is it still with POPLA?

Our appeal is still with POPLA - the scheduled hearing date is not until late-August.