Premier Park Limited - Now a Court Claim

thorfan

Background: My wife parked my car in a Premier Park Limited management carpark. She tried to enter the registration but the machine printed the ticket with only a partial plate. Knowing that she had paid, she appended the rest of the registration to the ticket, left it on display (although she didn't need to) and proceeded about her business. She paid for 3 hours parking and left after 90 minutes. Two weeks later, I recieved a NTK for £100 for Parking Unpaid or Session Expired.

Actions: Thinking this was simple, applied to PPL proving that she had paid, as she had kept the ticket. PPL rejected this and gave me a POPLA code. Having had a look at the Peppipo forum, I appealled on the basis that we had paid, PPL had no loss, GPEOL and landowner proof. POPLA very kindly put the appeal on hold pending Beavis, without informing me. A week ago they contacted me and asked me to provide further comments post-beavis. After a miscommunication with a telephone operator they assessed my case based on GPEOL and rejected it. Following a shouty phonecall they re-opened the case to give me time to submit more comment. I did this over the weekend. Today they again rejected the case on the basis that my wife had broken T&Cs by not entering the registration correctly. In disgust I phoned them and questioned the decision, and was basiclly fobbed off. I questioned where was the loss, this was dismissed. I asked about the lack of landowner permission, to be told that they had a witness statement, that was never shared with me.

Timeline: Sept: Alleged Parking Infraction
Oct: Appeal to operator, referred to POPLA, Appeal to POPLA
U/K: POPLA place appeal on hold
Feb: POPLA offer chance for further comment, POPLA reject appeal

Verdict: POPLA is a joke.

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of admitting to being the owner and knowing the driver when I recieved the NTK. This was down to a lack of internet research. When I got to the POPLA stage, I must have missed something on the PEPPIPO forum (i hadn't found this one then). What is ridiculous is that I have been chased for £100 when my wife made 'best effort' to fulfil the ridiculous T&Cs that PPL have imposed. I am now waiting for PPL to make a decision if they are going to continue to chase me as I fully intend to go to court if they do. In the meantime I am drafting a letter of complaint to POPLA and the Ombudsman Service as to the ridiculous manner in which my case has been handled, including the information I was never sent and the fact that they have allowed an operator to effectively penalise me for giving them money to park my car.

I will publish the original POPLA appeal and my subsequent comments sheet, as well as the joke of a decision later on.

dazster

That is what PoPLA does. If the signs said you must stand on your head stark naked going "wibble wibble wibble" then PoPLA would find against you if you failed to do so.

You have proof of payment so no real court would come to such a lame conclusion as PoPLA did, so now you just ignore everything unless Premier is stupid enough to actually try a case (pretty unlikely in the circumstances).

Fruitcake

dazster wrote: »

That is what PoPLA does. If the signs said you must stand on your head stark naked going "wibble wibble wibble" then PoPLA would find against you if you failed to do so.

You have proof of payment so no real court would come to such a lame conclusion as PoPLA did, so now you just ignore everything unless Premier is stupid enough to actually try a case (pretty unlikely in the circumstances).

As above.


In addition, complain to your MP, local and national press, leave negative feedback on [EMAIL="tw@tter"]tw@tter[/EMAIL], fakebook, and trapadvisor.


Please also read this and get everyone you know to sign the petition.


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5365003

nigelbb

If evidence was provided to POPLA by the PPC that was not also provided to you then you need to raise a complaint to POPLA & Ombudsman Services. You should have had the opportunity to rebut ALL the PPC evidence not just some of it. These new POPLA assessors are very simple minded & accept everything submitted by PPCs at face value so require the holes in PPC evidence to be pointed out e.g. Statement not actually from landlord or illegible signature or refers to different car park etc etc

thorfan

Original appeal to PPL (before I started reading up on this stuff)

On this day having paid for the ticket, my wife attempted to enter the car registration number into the machine as she had done previously. The machine however spat the ticket out after she had only entered the first two digits (xx). She took the ticket, appended the complete registration in pen, as can be seen by the attached scan, and placed displayed it accordingly. She complied with conditions for this car park. She paid £3.00 for three hours parking at 13:58 and your photos show here departing at 15:29, a stay of 1 hour 30 minutes. Please rescind this Parking Charge Notice.

Rebuttal from PPL

We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to your vehicle for a breach of the advertised terms and conditions.

We have considered your comments, and after examining all the evidence relating to the issuing of this PCN, we are satisfied that on this occasion the charge was issued correctly and must advise that your appeal has been denied.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit <PPLWebsite>

You now have three options;

1. Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the 14 day reduced amount of £60.00 by 28th October 2015. Please note that after this time the PCN will revert to the original £100.00 charge. Payment can be made online at <PPLWebsite> or you may send a cheque made payable to Premier Park Ltd.

2. Make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service, by completing the form which can be found at <POPLAWebsite> or write to POPLA - PO BOX 1270, Warrington – WA4 9RL. You will require this unique POPLA verification code xxxxxxxxxx. If you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of £60.00 and should POPLA’s decision not be found in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. For more information regarding making an appeal to POPLA, please visit <POPLAWebsite>.
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services <OmbudsmanWebsite> provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such, should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

3. If you choose to take no action, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our Debt Recovery Service and this may result in proceeding with legal action against you or the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Please note we will seek to recover all unpaid charges through the use of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 – Collection of Unpaid Parking Charges.

I managed to lose my original submission to the POPLA portal so cannot replicate that. I did ask POPLA to provide it to me but they failed to do so.

Evidence from PPL
Summary: I enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage. The signage clearly states that a parking session must be purchased and that Camera Enforcement is in operation. The signage also states that the full and correct vehicle registration must be entered. The Appellant has advised that his wife was driving the car. He states that she attempted to purchase a parking session but the ticket machine printed the ticket before she had chance to enter the full registration. The ticket was printed with only the first two letters xx. The driver then amended the ticket, as can be seen from the picture evidence. We have no reported faults with the machines at this site on the date of the incident. The contact number for Premier Park is clearly shown the signage and ticket, and the driver should have made contact. As the incomplete vehicle registration was entered, no payment was made for the vehicle parked at this site. An unpaid parking session of 1 hour and 32 minutes occurred and a Parking Charge Notice was issued. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the site. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

They included a scan of the PCN, my scan of the ticket, the ANPR images, pictures of the signage and finally a screenshot of the unsuccessful search for the number plate (this last bit !!!!es me off, as of course they wouldn’t find it… they never looked for the registration on the ticket).

My original rebuttal to the PPL Evidence pack (this was after looking at the Peppipo forum but obviously not deeply enough)

I am appealing against the Parking charge as my wife went to all efforts to comply with the regulations of the car park, even correcting the error caused by the operator's hardware. Additionally, I believe that the operator has issued a procedural rejection to my appeal, in the hope that I would simply pay their charge, rather that go through the effort of appealing again. Furthermore, I am disgusted that they chose to not provide me with an explanation of their rejection.

On the day in question (25/9/15), my wife entered the car park at 13:56, parked the car and proceeded to purchase a ticket valid for three hours parking. As part of the purchase, the machine requested that she submitted the registration number of the my car, but as she attempted to enter it, the machine printed the ticket. At this point she had only entered the first two digits (xx). Realising this, she appended the rest of the vehicle registration in pen, and displayed the ticket on the dashboard of the car. After approximately 90 minutes, she returned to the car and left the car-park (15:29). She still had a further 90 minutes left on this ticket. I have provided a scan of the ticket to Premier Park Limited, and they chose to reject my appeal and chose not to provide any reason for the rejection.

As can be seen by the scan of the ticket, my wife correctly paid for parking and left well within the allotted time; neither did she transfer the ticket to anyone else. She complied to the parking regulations to the best of her ability, even using the initiative of appending the full registration of the vehicle to the ticket after the equipment provided by Premier Park Limited failed in its intended purpose. As this system is most likely tied in some way to the ANPR system, it would have only taken a short while for someone to look through the records for the day in question, and notice that there was an entry that matched the first two digits of our car, within the time period in question. I believe that this was a procedural rejection just to waste my time.

I consider that Premier Park Ltd (PPL) have failed to provide evidence of:
a. Genuine financial loss: I have demonstrated that a fee was paid which covered the stay. By leaving early, the driver gave PPL the opportunity to receive a fee from another occupant of the car parking space vacated, which could be considered ‘double-dipping’. PPL have provided a screen shot of their internal search for the registration but failed to provide evidence that the registration recorded by their machine, “xx” (not “xy”), is not present within their database. I require PPL provide a list of registrations numbers that do not have corresponding ANPR entry. PPL have stated that they have no reported faults with the machines on this site on the date of the incident; I require PPL to provide full un-redacted maintenance AND fault logs for the machines in question for a period of 7 days either side of the date of this incident.
b. Genuine Pre-estimate of loss: The PCN received makes no mention of VAT and therefore cannot be considered a charge for services rendered. The charge, therefore, can only be construed to be a penalty. The charge of £100 for the alleged non-payment is extravagant, unconscionable and a punitive penalty; not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require PPL to supply details of the alleged losses they are attempting to recover that stem directly from the event. Normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection and costs in relation to processing of appeals have not occurred as a direct consequence of this parking event.
c. Lack of Contract with the Landowner: PPL state in their Notice to Keeper that they are authorised to manage the site, but do not name the principal. I require PPL to prove that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges, in the courts if necessary, in their own name as creditor.
The driver on the day operated in good faith, PPL have not.

Now at some point after this POPLA very kindly placed a hold on my appeal pending the analysis of Beavis. They did this without telling me, but when they deemed to talk to me again, they gave me the opportunity to send further comment based on Beavis. By this time I had found this forum and realised how many mistakes I had made earlier. I did still have faith that some common sense would abound.

My final rebuttal is in the next post.

thorfan

POPLA APPEAL xxxxxxxxxx

REBUTTAL OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY PREMIER PARK LIMITED

APPELLANT: ThorFan (REGISTERED KEEPER)

Following the hold placed on this appeal pending the resolution of Beavis versus ParkingEye (BvP), I have re-considered the evidence provided by Premier Park Limited (PPL). I strongly wish to continue my appeal and I submit that PPL have failed to justify this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on several points:

1. Authority of Landowner
2. No breach of contract
3. Frustration of contract
4. No demonstration of commercial loss
5. Failure to comply with PoFA 2012

I also submit that the charge in this case is excessive and that the judgement in BvP does not apply here due to the fact that this incident occurred in a Pay on Foot car park and not a retail park with a Free Parking Entitlement.

1. In the evidence submitted by PPL there is no demonstrable proof that PPL has the Written Authority of the Landowner (in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice (BPACOP) Version 5, October 2014) to issue this parking charge. In the Notice to Keeper (NTK) PPL state they are authorised to manage the site but have failed to name the Principal. PPL have failed to provide the contract or a witness statement as described in paragraph 22.16b of the BPACOP in the evidence pack. Additionally this information is absent from the signage provided by PPL. As PPL have failed to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between themselves and the unidentified landowner, it must be accepted that PPL have no proprietary interest in this site and therefore they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right or pursue charges for breaches in their own name. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has neither automatic standing, nor authority in their own right, which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPACOP.

2a. I submit that there has been no breach of contract as a fee was paid for the occupation of a parking space within the car park for a period of three hours. Due to an unresolved error the registration mark of the car that occupied the space for this time does not match with that recorded by the ANPR system. I submit that if PPL insist that the contract was breached then the driver is due a refund of the fee paid for this period as PPL chose to not render the services paid for. Failure to provide this refund should be construed to be acceptance by PPL of the appellant's ad hoc contract for the right to use the parking space.

2b. The signage provided by PPL is not clear and intelligible as is a requirement of BPACOP. Firstly the signage does not show any terms and conditions of parking with regards to the entry of the car registration. There are instructions on how to pay for parking, but there is no indication that the registration is a contractual requirement for parking. Secondly the requirement to pay One Hundred Pounds is not clear and prominent as advised in BvP. As stated by Lord Denning, this obligation should by the most prominent element of the sign.

2c. As there is dispute over the validity of the implied contract, there cannot be a breach of contract; the most appropriate alleged offence here could be civil trespass. In this case, the appropriate award PPL could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore should be no charge.

3a. Due to an unresolved error the registration of the vehicle in question was not correctly recorded. This was unforeseen by the driver who, in good faith, attempted to resolve the error by manual means. PPL have failed to apply the same good faith, by not demonstrating that they searched their ANPR database for the registration printed on the ticket issued by their own machine. It would seem to me to be a common sense approach following an analysis of the situation in question. An argument that the driver has breached the regulations in this case is disingenuous as is the argument that they understood the terms and conditions. There has been a lack of common sense by PPL and is a bad reflection on the industry.

3b. The signage provided by PPL designates that PPL '...operates a space maximisation scheme only'. This indicates that parking charges are in place to discourage motorist trespass by parking without permission. I submit that a fee was paid to park for a period of time and the vehicle departed within this period and therefore no trespass has occurred. Furthermore, by departing before the paid-for period had expired, the driver provided PPL the opportunity to garner an extra fee for the parking space occupied. PPL have not offered to refund the unused period of parking, and the driver or I would have no normal expectation of such, but in this extraordinary circumstance it should be considered, as the driver has assisted PPL in operating the space maximisation scheme by departing early.

4a. I submit that PPL have failed to demonstrate that any compulsive commercial reason that their losses are commensurate with a charge of One Hundred Pounds. They have not provided evidence that the car park was full at the time of the incident; the vehicle was not occupying a space that another driver could use and pay for. In fact as demonstrated above the driver provided PPL with the opportunity for extra income by vacating the parking space early. Therefore PPL have not demonstrated any loss of income. They have not provided a breakdown of what the charge consists of, merely using the maximum figure suggested by the BPACOP. Administration costs for issuing the Parking Charge Notice should not be the responsibility of an appellant as they are normal business operating costs. They have not demonstrated any loss to the landowner or in fact that they had a contract with the landowner to pursue the losses of the landowner. In accordance with advice provided by Citizens Advice, this figure is therefore an unenforceable penalty, as the amount being charged is more than the loss demonstrated by the landowner.

4b. In this situation the implied contract is a clear consumer financial contract where the loss is easily calculable unlike in BvP. There is a financial interaction between PPL and the driver. There is no commercially or socially justifiable deterrent value in the Parking Charge as the vehicle would have been fully entitled to park in return for payment of a small parking tariff. The contractual term is clearly an attempt to impose payment of a large sum in consequence of the alleged non-payment of a very small sum. Any real loss can only be the small parking tariff and it is only that to which the landowner, not PPL, may be entitled. The demanded charge is, without intellectual dishonesty, a clearly unenforceable penalty. With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 part 1 paragraph 6 and UTCCR 1999 SCHEDULE 2 REGULATION 5(5) 1(e)) the charge is clearly an unenforceable contract term as PPL is seeking to impose compensation that is vastly disproportionate to the parking tariff that the PPL alleges should have been paid.

4c. PPL claim that inadequate payment was made, a fact disputed by the driver and I. In this case their demand should be for the unpaid tariff for the period of parking, two pounds in accordance with the signage provided in their evidence pack; a charge of one hundred pounds is therefore evidently a penalty not an accurate representation of loss.

4d. I further submit that the charge in this case is excessive and that the judgement in BvP does not apply here, due to the fact that the alleged indiscretion occurred in a Pay on Foot car park. The BvP case involved an overstay in a free car park. A more accurate case study would be that from ParkingEye v Cargius (PvC) involving an overstay in a Paid Car park. BvP justified the charge based on it being the sole income for the company, in PvC the charge being the loss of income from overstaying. The PPL charge is based on a 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid'. PPL have failed to demonstrate that Parking Charges are the sole income of the company and that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing the charge. The charge is being enforced in an attempt to punish the driver or I for an alleged inadvertent indiscretion solely for PPL's profit. Therefore the charge is extravagant, disproportionate and unconscionable with reference to the alleged indiscretion, especially when no other party was inconvenienced or affected.

5a. Not withstanding the fact the I have admitted ownership of said vehicle and concede I am aware of the identity of the driver, PPL have issued a NTK that is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As this was a Pay on Foot car park, the NTK must set out the situation clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid on the day before the date of issue of the PCN. In accordance with timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed.

5b. The NTK only states that the reason for the PCN was ‘Parking Session Expired or Unpaid’. This does not constitute a statement of fact, it renders me uncertain as to whether the driver paid nothing or too little, or paid in full but put in the wrong car registration, or some other event. PPL has, in fact relies upon, the technology to record car registrations, to collect and record payments and to take photos of vehicles arriving and leaving and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they can state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued as required under PoFA 2012 (paragraphs 9(2)(b), (c) & (d)). As demonstrated in my appeal a fee was paid that covered period of the alleged transgression; therefore the invalid NTK was erroneously issued.

In addition to all the above, I must reiterate that the charge in this case is excessive and that the judgement in BvP does not apply here due to the fact that this incident occurred in a Pay on Foot car park. Whilst the assessor will be fully aware of the Supreme Court’s Judgement, I provide the following extracts from the judgement:

Paragraph 97: ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass...

Paragraph 107: ...it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.

Paragraph 190: ...Mr Beavis...would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. But ParkingEye was not in possession of the car park, or capable of bringing proceedings in trespass. It had a mere right to control parking at the site - the right to permit or refuse others to park there on such conditions as it might stipulate.

As BvP concerned parking at a Retail Park not a Pay on Foot car park the rationale behind that decision is not relevant here. The assessment on this appeal must be made without prejudice based on the rulings in BvP.

Finally, the Department for Transport guidelines clearly states ”Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver" and the Office of Fair Trading ''expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge.

Based on the above, I respectively request the assessor upholds this appeal. PPL has failed to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice is justified or valid on this occasion, whereas I have demonstrated an honest attempt on the part of the driver to satisfy the imposed regulations was made. The charge is excessive and not representative of any perceived loss by PPL. It is my opinion that there has been a lack of common sense by PPL and this is a bad reflection on the industry.

Finally, this is the assessment by POPLA. I have received this twice, once last week when a POPLA operator decided to append my phone rant to my case file as ‘Motorist Comment’ despite knowing that I intended to submit comments by email.

POPLA Decision

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the driver of the vehicle has not paid to pay in the car park and not displayed a valid ticket.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that his wife was driving the vehicle and did purchase a ticket but the machine did not take the full vehicle registration and the appellant’s wife wrote the registration on the ticket in pen.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has sent photographic evidence of the signage placed throughout the car park. There are clear and visible and explain the terms and conditions. The appellant has stated that his wife did park in the car park and she did pay a fee. The appellant has stated that when his wife attempted to enter her registration number the machine only registered the first two letters. The appellant states his wife wrote the full registration on the ticket in pen. I have received evidence of this. The operator has sent me the audit trail which shows no faults on the machine and no part registration entered. The terms and conditions state it is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for the correct, full vehicle registration. The Appellant has failed to do this, and has therefore breached the advertised terms and conditions of the operator. The appellant has given further evidence when giving his motorist comments. This should only be used to provide evidence to the case and not ask for the operator to supply new evidence. If they had been used in the original appeal we could have asked the operator to supply these. The terms and conditions state it is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for the correct, full vehicle registration. The Appellant has failed to do this, and has therefore breached the advertised terms and conditions of the operator. I can conclude that the terms and conditions were not met and the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly

Following this, I telephoned them to confirm that they had issued the same decision, with the same wording, despite my rebuttal above. During a 20 minute conversation with a POPLA operator, I found out that POPLA had a Witness Statement confirming the Landowner stuff that they had not shared with me. The other points were dismissed in turn as if they didn’t matter. The operator kept fixating on GPEOL, until I got frustrated and asked for the complaints procedure and requested full and un-redacted material pertinent to my case to be sent to me as I was considering legal action against both POPLA and PPL. I got a nice email telling me that if I want that, then I can send a cheque for $10 quid and they will consider it.

Email from POPLA

In order for us to provide the information we hold regarding your complaint, you need to submit a subject access request (SAR) under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

To do this, please provide a cheque for £10 payable to "Ombudsman Services". This payment is to cover our administration costs and is a standard fee approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Please also provide a covering letter explaining what information you would like us to send.

Upon receipt of your cheque, we have 40 calendar days to provide copies of the requested information.

If it wasn't so annoying, I would be laughing at the ridiculousness of it all.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

If evidence was provided to POPLA by the PPC that was not also provided to you then you need to raise a complaint to POPLA & Ombudsman Services. You should have had the opportunity to rebut ALL the PPC evidence not just some of it. These new POPLA assessors are very simple minded & accept everything submitted by PPCs at face value so require the holes in PPC evidence to be pointed out e.g. Statement not actually from landlord or illegible signature or refers to different car park etc etc

Agreed. The OP said:

I asked about the lack of landowner permission, to be told that they had a witness statement, that was never shared with me.

So the OP needs to email POPLA and head it up 'formal complaint and request to reopen case xxxxxxxxxx due to the same evidence pack not being received by me, the appellant'. Then explain what's what, NOT going on about loss, nothing else.

Not even about the decision itself but to tell them that the evidence pack provided to you did not have any such 'witness statement'. Can you prove it? Did the evidence to you arrive by email? If so then prove that to POPLA by forwarding the attachment.

And complain about this to the BPA:

aos@britishparking.co.uk


A case like this 'should' be reopened and either the missing evidence disregarded by POPLA this time (in which case you win on no landowner authority) or you should be provided with exactly the same evidence as seen by POPLA and then have a further chance to respond, whcih needs to be stronger than last weekend's version, although I can see you included a lot of detail.

Guys_Dad

You may have lost at POPLA but you should not lose in court.

thorfan

Not even about the decision itself but to tell them that the evidence pack provided to you did not have any such 'witness statement'. Can you prove it? Did the evidence to you arrive by email? If so then prove that to POPLA by forwarding the attachment

The evidence pack was very kindly emailed to me in PDF form by Premier Park. There is no witness statement regarding landowner authority. It will be going in with complaint letter that I am putting together.

Coupon-mad

thorfan wrote: »

The evidence pack was very kindly emailed to me in PDF form by Premier Park. There is no witness statement regarding landowner authority. It will be going in with complaint letter that I am putting together.

PERFECT!

You absolutely must make a formal complaint to the BPA and also to POPLA, requiring them to disregard the witness statement or supply their FULL EVIDENCE copy to you and then reopen the case due to not all evidence being made available to the consumer (remind POPLA that the consumer's right to see and comment on ALL evidence is a fundamental POPLA principle, you can see this was the PPC's fault not POPLA's but you now need POPLA to take appropriate steps to reopen the case).

If not, say you will escalate the complaint to ISPA so you hope POPLA can now review all this and see that you have been treated very unfairly thus far which is why you are so distressed about the matter which shows an utter lack of good faith and transparency by Premier Park, as well as a clear breach of the CoP.

Ask the BPA how can you be sure the evidence packs match at all, seeing as it's provable they don't! Copy in the DVLA because that makes the BPA sit up:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

HTH

thorfan

I hadn't thought of including the DVLA. I am working on the BPA complaint but this is my first draft of my complaint email to POPLA.

<Removed because of next post>