Premier Park Limited - Now a Court Claim

thorfan

I am taking your advice and have combined the complaints into a single document. I intend to include the text in the body of the email and as a PDF attachment, with the PPL Evidence Pack as an attachment as well. I am thinking of including PPL as a CC address just so they know what is about to hit them.

To: complaints@popla.co.uk;info@popla.co.uk;aos@britishparking.co.uk;info@britishparking.co.uk
CC: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: Formal Complaint and request to reopen case xxxxxxxxxx due to missing evidence in the Evidence Pack received by the appellant

Reference: POPLA xxxxxxxxxx

To whom it may concern,

During the above numbered case, it became evident that Premier Park Limited (PPL) had provided POPLA with evidence that was not included in the evidence pack provided to the appellant. This is a failure by PPL to adhere with the regulations laid down in the British Parking Association Code of Practise (BPACoP).

Whilst participating in a telephone call with a POPLA operator on Monday 22 February 2016, the appellant was informed that a ‘Witness Statement’ had been provided to POPLA, purporting to supply Landowner Authority to Premier Park for the Parking Site that the alleged infraction occurred on. This ‘Witness Statement’ was never supplied to the appellant, thus preventing him from rebutting this evidence. The appellant raised this with the operator who acknowledged the fact, but did not take any action on it.

To quote Henry Michael Greenslade on page 15 of the POPLA Annual Report 2015 p 15, “…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety. A party may challenge the contents of a particular document and this will be carefully considered but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what is produced might in all the circumstances contain some or all of the information required to determine a relevant issue”. The appellant did not see this ‘Witness Statement’ and therefore was unfairly denied the opportunity to rebut this evidence.

Through researching this case, it was discovered that POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. Based on this precedent, if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

As such, the appellant requests that POPLA reopen case xxxxxxxxxx, dismisses the ‘Witness Statement’ on either lack of disclosure by PPL or as ‘not valid evidence’ and re-assess the appeal. PPL do not have the authority of the landowner to operate in manner they are.

In parallel, the appellant requests that the British Parking Association (BPA) review the actions of PPL in this case, particularly with regards to the evidence packs. How can an appellant be sure that the evidence packs sent to POPLA and to themselves are the same, when POPLA have demonstrated that they have evidence that was not available to the appellant? Included with this submission is the Evidence Pack provided to the appellant by PPL, which does not include any indication of Landowner Authority. As indicated by Section 7 of your own Code of Practise an operator requires the ‘…written authority of the landowner…’ if they do not own the land. PPL have failed to provide that evidence to the appellant, therefore breaching your own CoP. As such, the appellant request the BPA audits Premier Park Limited, sanctions them for the breach of the CoP in this case and invites them to cancel the Parking Charge Notice without delay.

To prevent such a miscarriage in the future the appellant requires that both POPLA and BPA check whether PPL have a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner and confirm that it specifically enables PPL to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system.

The appellant offers POPLA and BPA the opportunity to review this case and observe that they have been unfairly treated to this point before they are forced to raise the complaint with the ISPA. The complete lack of good faith and transparency by PPL, not to mention the clear breach of the BPACoP, has left the appellant distressed.

Coupon-mad

This ‘Witness Statement’ was never supplied to the appellant, thus preventing him from rebutting this evidence. The appellant raised this with the operator who acknowledged the fact, but did not take any action on it.

If the appellant is you I would not put this in the third person as it reads oddly.

I would remove stuff about witness statements not being acceptable because that all moved on ages ago and POPLA do consider them. I think it's a mistake to say that because they could reply to it and say 'oh yes it is OK and here's a copy, happy now?!'

I think you should be just saying 'PPL should now immediately cancel this charge because withholding evidence from an appellant is contrary to POPLA rules and the BPA CoP and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in terms of the doctrines of 'good faith' and 'fair dealing' with consumers. They have not been fair or transparent with evidence; surely this borders on fraudulent behaviour. State you know of London Councils POPLA cases where this has happened and been exposed and 'London Councils POPLA' re-heard the case, not allowing the landowner authority as evidence and therefore the appellants won, in Summer 2015.

I would ask the BPA and DVLA to question PPL and conduct a full investigation and audit including a requirement for full and thorough disclosure of recent POPLA evidence emails from PPL to appellants over the past six months since this new POPLA system started because it begs the question, how many times have they done this? Are they taking advantage of the Portal system whereby they can send one thing to POPLA and quite another to a consumer and no-one knows unless they realise what should have happened. Most consumers would have no clue they had been cheated in this situation.

POPLA can assist by providing to the DVLA and BPA, a number of cases where PPL have won recently and a comparison could take place between the evidence as supplied to POPLA and the evidence the appellants received.

Finish by pointing the way forward, say what you want to happen and by when.

Say in your case you either require cancellation of the charge this week, within 48 hours or the case to be reopened and you will cite in your rebuttal the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because the fairness of a charge MUST be considered whether an appellant (defendant if in court) raised it in the first instance, or not. There is clear evidence of unfairness under the CRA 2015 and misleading business practice under the CPUTRs 2008 (such behaviour is banned in law) so the appeal decision should now be reversed and/or the appeal upheld on no landowner authority as that evidence is now inadmissable.

I would not copy PPL in! Let them find out the hard way!

thorfan

Thanks for that advice, I will redraft this when I get home. I will change it all from the third person as you are correct, it doesn't read right, but I had got screen blind from reading it all.

thorfan

To: complaints@popla.co.uk;info@popla.co.uk;aos@britishparking.co.uk;info@britishparking.co.uk
CC: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Formal Complaint and request to reopen case xxxxxxxxxx due to missing evidence in the Evidence Pack received by the appellant

Reference: POPLA Case xxxxxxxxxx

To whom it may concern,

During the above numbered case, it became evident that Premier Park Limited (PPL) had provided POPLA with evidence that was not included in the evidence pack provided to me as the appellant. This is a failure by PPL to adhere with the regulations laid down in the British Parking Association Code of Practise (BPACoP).

Whilst participating in a telephone call with a POPLA operator on Monday 22 February 2016, I was informed that a ‘Witness Statement’ had been provided to POPLA, purporting to supply Landowner Authority to Premier Park for the Parking Site that the alleged infraction occurred on. This ‘Witness Statement’ was never supplied to me, thus preventing me from rebutting this evidence. I raised this with the POPLA operator who acknowledged the fact, but did not take any action on it.

To quote Henry Michael Greenslade on page 15 of the POPLA Annual Report 2015 p 15, “…it is certainly a basic principle of a fair appeals service that each party is given the opportunity to see the other party’s case and to comment upon it. This is the position at POPLA. Appellants should obviously receive the operator’s evidence in its entirety. A party may challenge the contents of a particular document and this will be carefully considered but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what is produced might in all the circumstances contain some or all of the information required to determine a relevant issue”. I did not see this ‘Witness Statement’ and therefore was unfairly denied the opportunity to rebut this evidence.

It is my opinion that PPL should immediately cancel this PCN as withholding evidence from an appellant is contrary to both POPLA rules and the BPACoP, and is a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in terms of the doctrines of ‘good faith’ and ‘fair dealing’ with consumers. They have not been fair or transparent with their evidence in order to manipulate the system; this borders on fraudulent behaviour. I am aware of ‘London Council’s POPLA’ cases, as recently as Summer 2015, where this has occurred and been exposed. This caused ‘London Council’s POPLA’ to reassess the cases and allow the appellant’s appeals on the grounds of Lack of Landowner Authority.

I request that the British Parking Association and the DVLA review the actions of PPL in this case, particularly with regards to the evidence packs. How can I be sure that the evidence packs sent to POPLA and to me are the same, when POPLA have demonstrated that they have evidence that was not available to me? I have included with this submission the Evidence Pack provided by PPL, which does not include any indication of Landowner Authority. As indicated by Section 7 of the BPACoP an operator requires the ‘…written authority of the landowner…’ if they do not own the land. PPL have failed to provide that evidence to me, breaching the BPACoP.

As such, the I request the BPA and DVLA conducts a full investigation and audit of PPL. Due to their actions in this case, this should include the full disclosure of POPLA evidence emails from PPL to POPLA and appellants sent since the introduction of the new POPLA portal. This is the minimum requirement to ensure that PPL are not taking advantage of the new Portal, sending one evidence pack to POPLA and a differing one to the appellants. POPLA can assist in this investigation by providing the number of case won by PPL since POPLA implemented the new portal, with a comparison of the evidence packs supplied to themselves and appellants, to ensure that there has been no malfeasance.

To prevent such a miscarriage in the future I request that both POPLA and BPA check whether PPL have a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner and confirm that it specifically enables PPL to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system.

Further to my requests, I require the cancellation of this PCN within 48 hours of this submission. If you choose not to, in addition to reasons in writing, I require POPLA reopen case xxxxxxxxxx. In my rebuttal I will cite the Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fairness of a charge must be considered, whether an appellant raised it in the first instance, or not. There is clear evidence of unfairness under the CRA 2015 and misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. POPLA should dismiss the ‘Witness Statement’ on lack of disclosure by PPL and the appeal decision should now be reversed with the appeal upheld on the grounds of ‘No Landowner Authority’ as that evidence is now inadmissible. PPL do not have the authority of the landowner to operate in manner they are.

I am offering POPLA, BPA and the DVLA the opportunity to review this case and observe that I have been unfairly treated to this point before I am forced to raise the complaint with the ISPA. The complete lack of good faith and transparency by PPL, not to mention the clear breach of the BPACoP, has left me feeling extremely distressed.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant! :T

Just saw one typo: should be Code of Practice

I REALLY don't like Premier Park.

thorfan

Thank you... sent this today having added the DVLA CCRT email as well. I cannot wait to see what happens now.

thorfan

Meanwhile, when I got home I found a nice letter from PPL in my letterbox asking for payment within a month, or they would commence court action. Suffice to say, I fully intend to ignore it, but I thought I would copy a couple of paragraphs for your amusement.

'Should you consider not making payment, we must draw your attention to the recent landmark decision in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd-v-Mr Barry Beavis. Further details on the case can be found at <website>. This case was seen as an important 'test case' due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on similar cases for the whole of the United Kingdom.

If payment is not received by the above date we will commence court action to recover what you owe. This will include additional charges to include legal and court costs. Should judgement be awarded in our favour, this may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future. The decision of the independent adjudicator will form part of our case in these proceedings.'

They provided the emphasis on 'test case'. I like that they consider it as a '...legally binding precedent on all similar cases...', especially as this case was bu66er all like the Beavis case. Obviously the muppets are trying to bunch all cases into one big hopper.

Oh...and the '...decision of the independent adjudicator...' will form a teeny weeny bit of my case against them.

Marktheshark

Getting to the stage that this new POPLA need putting in the same box as IPA.
Both equally as bent.

Never forget, they lose money on court cases as they need to employ a solicitor and only get £50 expenses.
I would make it cost them money to get their money.

thorfan

DVLA - Not our remit
BPA - We'll talk to PPL and get back to you
POPLA - Flat dismissal with some crap about only assessing based on original appeal. Have fired off response, questioning that statement

More to follow later.

catfunt

thorfan wrote: »

DVLA - Not our remit
BPA - We'll talk to PPL and get back to you
POPLA - Flat dismissal with some crap about only assessing based on original appeal. Have fired off response, questioning that statement

More to follow later.

Which begs the question "why TF do they bother with evidence packs and invite rebuttals" if they are going to ignore them anyway.

Wonder what the ISPA think?