Premier Park PCN Help please

addie85

Right all submitted. Lets see what the next step will be from them.

Again, thank you all for your input, ill post again when i hear from them.

addie85

Right so I have received premier park's response to the appeal by email. POPLA emailed at the same time to state that I have received their evidence pack and have 7 days to make any comments on this. Is this something that I should be doing? Shall I post their evidence pack on here?
They have enclosed:
-some very poorly lit images of my car where you can't really see anything through the windows to show the permit.
-images of signage taken during daylight hours
-a bit of writing saying I haven't displayed a permit so are in breach of their terms etc... And therefore liable.
-a copy of a contract with the landowners, this is the only thing that stood out to me. There is a sentence underlined in there which allows the company to 'authorise parking on the land' doesn't say anything about charges.
What are everyone's thoughts on my next step? I was thinking about mentioning via the portal that the images are not proof of not displaying a permit as they are so poorly lit you can't prove and guarantee beyond reasonable doubt that there wasn't a permit visible.

Coupon-mad

Is this something that I should be doing? Shall I post their evidence pack on here?

Yes, but we don't need to see the evidence pack. Things like this are important, if yours was in the hours of darkness, point this out:

''images of signage taken during daylight hours''

Tear apart the evidence piece by piece. Show us what you are thinking of putting to POPLA now.

addie85

I was thinking of making the comments short and sweet as not to be repetitive with the original appeal. These are the main points that I could think to comment about their evidence-

The copy of "Customer Licence Agreement" provided by Premier Park is neither signed nor dated by Premier Park rendering this contract invalid meaning Premier Park have no legal standing or authority to issue PCNs on this land.

The time that the PCN was issued was at 20:10 in the hours of complete darkness. The images of signage provided are taken nearly 3 years ago during daylight hours- these are not a fair representation by Premier Park to demonstrate that the signs at the time in question were sufficiently clear as per BPA regulations.

Premier Park state that a permit was not displayed which is shown by their photographic evidence, however the images are of such poor quality that this cannot be proven. They are out of focus and dark and from these it would be impossible to clearly see a permit (of approximately 8cm in diameter) on display.

Coupon-mad

addie85 wrote: »

I was thinking of making the comments short and sweet as not to be repetitive with the original appeal. These are the main points that I could think to comment about their evidence-

The copy of "Customer Licence Agreement" provided by Premier Park is neither signed nor dated by Premier Park rendering this contract invalid meaning Premier Park have no legal standing or authority to issue PCNs on this land.

The time that the PCN was issued was at 20:10 in the hours of complete darkness. The images of signage provided are taken nearly 3 years ago during daylight hours- these are not a fair representation by Premier Park to demonstrate that the signs at the time in question were sufficiently clear as per BPA regulations.

Premier Park state that a permit was not displayed [STRIKE]which is shown by their photographic evidence,[/STRIKE] however the images are of such poor quality that this cannot be proven. They are out of focus and dark and from these it would be impossible to clearly see a permit (of approximately 8cm in diameter) on display.

Yep, all good except I'd remove the bit above I crossed out because it read as if you were saying 'which is shown in their photo evidence' (but then you are actually saying the opposite).

I think I would also add some points to distinguish your case from the case of PARKINGEYE LTD V BEAVIS [2015] UKSC 67:

1. Because the terms and the £100 charge were NOT prominent nor lit (and were not seen) nor was the £100 charge stipulated as a stated sum when the permit was provided to residents, in this case Premier Park's charge IS an unfair and unconscionable penalty because in 'Beavis' the Judges put significant reliance upon signage which was fundamental:

Lord Neuberger: ''the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed.’’
Lord Mance: '’The signs exhibited at the entrance and throughout the car park are large, prominent and legible. ‘’
Lord Hodge: ‘'the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.’’

2. Premier Park have shown no legitimate interest in the enforcement of the contract which extends beyond the recovery of compensation for breach. In fact they purport that it is a charge for damages caused by breach, unlike ParkingEye in 'Beavis'.

Mance at 285: ’'the charge was not and did not purport to be a claim for damages for any loss that ParkingEye would suffer...ParkingEye suffered no loss.’’

Lord Hodge at 255: ’'I therefore conclude that the correct test for a penalty is whether the sum or remedy stipulated as a consequence of a breach of contract is exorbitant or unconscionable when regard is had to the {parking company’s} interest in the performance of the contract. Where the test is to be applied to a clause fixing the level of damages to be paid on breach, an extravagant disproportion between the stipulated sum and the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the breach would amount to a penalty and thus be unenforceable.’’

In this case, the highest level of damages caused by a person with a permit parking correctly in the right bay, with authorisation from a valid permit displayed (but not shown by Premier Park's careful photo angles) is zero. Clearly £100 is wholly disproportionate by that simple comparison. In addition, Mr Beavis was held to have accepted the terms and knew of the charge - but I did not accept any terms and knew nothing of the charge until it was too late. That is not an agreed contract.

addie85

brilliant, all submitted, thanks again! had to cut it all down a bit as they only allow a 2000 character limit but got all the main points in.