Premier Park - PCN Parked in Mothers Allocated Space in Residents Car Park at Flats

viper1984

Thanks, I have ditched point #1 and removed the line 'I am writing this letter with regards to the parking charge posted upon my vehicle by Premier Park'.


I will add a point about the sign too.


I checked the parkingcowboys link and have gone through it. Do you agree with what I have deduced?

• Which car the ticket relates to – yes, vehicle registration.
• What land the car was parked on – yes, the flat address.
• The period the car was parked – no, just a date given.
• Advise that the driver is liable for the parking charge and the amount and that it has not been paid in full – yes, first paragraph.
• State whether a notice to the driver was given either to the driver or placed on the vehicle and if so to repeat the information in that notice about paying the parking charge and when – is this a no? first paragraph says ‘ we issued a PCN to your vehicle’. No mention of it being placed on the vehicle, or given to driver.
• Specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and of the dispute resolution arrangements. - Yes, outstanding amount and additional costs. No, to dispute resolution.
• Invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge or, if he was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and to pass a copy of the notice on to that driver – no, to invite registered keeper to pay the outstanding charge. Yes to request driver details.
• Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge – yes, money payable to premier park. Though I am unsure if they are the creditor?
• Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remains outstanding after 28 days and the name and address of the driver has not been given, or otherwise known to the person entitled to the parking charge, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper. – yes, paragraph 4.
• Details of the discount for payment within 14 days, The Discount should be at least 40% of the full charge under the BPA Code of Practice (applies to BPA Members only) – no, no mention of the discounted amount of £60.
• Date of the notice – yes.

Umkomaas

Well there's a list of 'FAILS', so list them and cross reference the paragraph numbers from PoFA against each 'fail' in your next draft of your appeal.

strawberries1

I'm bookmarking this for my pcn.

viper1984

Haven taken a good look around the parking area I actually think the signage positioning and number of signs is pretty reasonable so I haven't spent much time arguing that point.

At the moment this is my latest (and unless anyone points out where it can be improved) final draft of the POPLA appeal to send next month.

As always, any advice is much appreciated.



UKPC Reference Number: xxxxxxxxxxx
POPLA REF: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I wish to appeal to POPLA as Premier Park have already turned down my appeal.

At the time in question the vehicle was parked in the space allocated to the landowner (my mother). I have her express permission to park there.

The parking charge as requested by Premier Park is incorrect and I challenge it on the following grounds:

#1 No valid contract with landowner
The Operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I know that they do not have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. Therefore there is no contract between the keeper and Premier Park Ltd.

#2 No authority
Premier Park does not own the land they operated on. My mother, the leaseholder, owns the land. She has had no contact with Premier Park, and therefore has not given authority for Premier Park to operate on her property.

#3 Permission was granted
The vehicle was parked in the designated bay with full permission and authority from the designated owner of the parking bay. The landowner of the property, my mother, is the designated owner of the bay. This supersedes any terms and conditions on the signage. The landowner, and guests given permission to use the landowners space, have a right to peaceful enjoyment of that space.

#4 Keeper liability not established
PoFA 2012. The Notice to Keeper letter invalid; condition set out in Schedule 4, paragraph 4(2)(a) has not been complied with. Notice to Keeper letter did not contain; paragraph 8(2)a - The period of parking is not shown, only the date it was parked. Paragraph 8(2)(c) There is no acknowledgment that the driver was informed of the requirement to pay charges. Paragraph 8(2) The keeper is not invited to pay the unpaid parking charges. Paragraph 8(2)(g) No discount is offered for prompt payment, and there are no references to any arrangements for the resolution of disputes.

#5 Inadequate Signage
There is no chain of authority from the landowner (my mother) to Premier Park, so no standing; that even if they did have standing, their signage was forbidding and did not make a contractual offer to motorists not displaying a permit. The font size on the signage is too small to be easily seen when entering the premises.

I require that Premier Park provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent). My mother has no contract with Premier Park, nor a requirement to display a permit. In fact, agents working for Premier Park are trespassing on the landowners property by entering the allocated parking bay without the landowners permission.

This concludes my POPLA appeal. I attach a photo of the NTK letter and of the sign displayed in the car park.

Yours faithfully,

{Name of Keeper}

bod1467

I'll let others review and consider, but I think you need far more explanation in your appeal as to WHY the PPC have no case.

IMHO points 1 to 3 amount to the same thing, as does part of point 5. The structure of the appeal is a bit rambling.

Coupon-mad

That is extremely short, doesn't mention the vital '28 day period' error covered all the time recently on similar threads with this operator.

Doesn't look like one on the forum found by searching 'Premier Park POPLA'? Takes you seconds to do the search and maybe an hour of reading other ones and you'll have improved that draft. Show us mark two!

viper1984

I appreciate its fairly short, but I don't want an essay for someone to run through. I would rather just have the main points there for them to read through. I appreciate you may disagree with that approach, but it is the one I would prefer to receive.

I have done that search, and that search brings back only 179 threads. I've searched and researched for hours on the forum. Trouble is not everything is relevant to my situation. I have no idea what this 28 day period error is, the NTK was sent less than 28 days if that's what you mean? Can you post a link to the particular threads you refer to please?

Fruitcake

viper1984 wrote: »

I appreciate its fairly short, but I don't want an essay for someone to run through. I would rather just have the main points there for them to read through. I appreciate you may disagree with that approach, but it is the one I would prefer to receive.

I have done that search, and that search brings back only 179 threads. I've searched and researched for hours on the forum. Trouble is not everything is relevant to my situation. I have no idea what this 28 day period error is, the NTK was sent less than 28 days if that's what you mean? Can you post a link to the particular threads you refer to please?

It's far too short. Recently PoPLA have been making some dreadful decisions so the current advice is to explain to the assessor in words of one syllable why the appeal should be upheld. For example, with reference to a non POFA 2012 compliant NTK, it is necessary to bring the assessor's attention to all the wording in the relevant section of POFA, then point out line by line why the parking company has failed to comply with each part.
It is no good to just say, the NTK fails to meet the requirements of POFA 2012, you have to lead the assessor by the nose.

Coupon-mad

viper1984 wrote: »

I appreciate its fairly short, but I don't want an essay for someone to run through. I would rather just have the main points there for them to read through. I appreciate you may disagree with that approach, but it is the one I would prefer to receive.

I have done that search, and that search brings back only 179 threads. I've searched and researched for hours on the forum. Trouble is not everything is relevant to my situation. I have no idea what this 28 day period error is,

You will lose if you don't explain to the badly-trained, possibly even half-witted POPLA Assessors (sorry but some of them have shown no understanding whatsoever) exactly what you mean by each point. You can't add any more later, POPLA won't let you. So you have to cover all bases now. We do 'throw the kitchen sink at it' POPLA appeals deliberately, the length of each point is a strategy that works. You only have to convince POPLA on one point but short points will be missed.

You have no idea what the 28 day period is - yet it is on every Premier Park POPLA case in the last two months, the first ones in your results of 179 threads. You only need to read the POPLA appeals, not the entire threads.

Just a thought, when you are doing the forum search are you leaving it at 'show threads'? Nope, search and 'show posts' so you only see the POPLA appeals. This will take you half an hour tops, if you simply read the posts with POPLA appeals from the past 2 months, not get bogged down by 179 results of entire threads.

Try searching 'Premier Park POPLA within 28' as a set of keywords to try, then 'show posts'. Not using the entire MSE search top right of the forum page. Not that search. My search shows me 32 results only.

The 'search this forum' facility, on the right but along the line immediately above the top thread on page one, level with 'new thread' not the useless MSE 'entire articles, forums and all' search box right at the top.

the NTK was sent less than 28 days if that's what you mean?

No, what we mean is, the wording on the NTK is wrong.

If you are struggling with searches, read the POPLA Decisions thread instead, work your way back (from the most recent posts there) and find Premier Park wins, which will lead you to threads and POPLA appeals by that person. The groundbreaking decision was made in April and certainly is in 'POPLA Decisions' at the top of the forum, look back in that sticky thread and find the April posts there and see this exact winning point clearly spelt out.

Even with no other threads to refer to, you can also see for yourself that the wording on the NTK is wrong to say 'within 28 days' if you compare it to the POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 which does not say 'within 28 days' in the prescribed, mandatory wording warning about keeper liability.

viper1984

Hi


First of all, thanks for persisting with me! I didn't realise how much of a difference using the advanced search made. Being able to search within individual threads like the POPLA decisions one has made a massive difference.


Right, I now what you mean by the NTK worded badly regarding the 28 days. I have updated my appeal, but still have some tidying up to do (particularly section 6). However, I have to submit it in little over a week so would appreciate any feedback mainly on point 1, which I figure is the main one to win the appeal.


Thanks again






UKPC Reference Number: xxxxxxxxxxx
POPLA REF: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I wish to appeal to POPLA as Premier Park have already turned down my appeal.

At the time in question the vehicle was parked in the space allocated to the landowner (my mother). I have her express permission to park there.

The parking charge as requested by Premier Park is incorrect and I challenge it on the following grounds:

#1 NTK not compliant with the PoFA
The driver has not been identified as per the requirements of PoFA 2012. Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA states the Notice to Keeper must;
“9(2)(f) warn 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 under paragraph (d) 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 this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”


The Notice to Keeper issued states “If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, we have the right, subject to the requirements of the Act, to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the keeper of the vehicle. “


Premier Park have not fully met the requirements of PoFA as by informing it can seek to recover payment after 28 days, it has failed to meet section (9f) as this 28 day period will not begin until the day after the notice is given.


#2 Keeper liability not established
The Notice to Keeper letter does not establish keeper liability as per PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 4(2)(a) and the following has not been complied with.
“8(2)(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.” The period of parking is not shown, only the date it was parked.
“8(2)(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f).” There is no acknowledgment that the driver was informed of the requirement to pay charges.
“8(2)(e)(i) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—to pay the unpaid parking charges; or” The keeper is not invited to pay the unpaid parking charges.
“8(2)(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;” No discount is offered for prompt payment, and there are no references to any arrangements for the resolution of disputes.


#3 No valid contract with landowner
The Operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I know that they do not have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. Therefore there is no contract between the keeper and Premier Park Ltd.


#4 No authority
Premier Park does not own the land they operated on. My mother, the leaseholder, owns the land. She has had no contact with Premier Park, and therefore has not given authority for Premier Park to operate on her property.


#5 Permission was granted
The vehicle was parked in the designated bay with full permission and authority from the designated owner of the parking bay. The landowner of the property, my mother, is the designated owner of the bay. This supersedes any terms and conditions on the signage. The landowner, and guests given permission to use the landowners space, have a right to peaceful enjoyment of that space.


#6 Inadequate Signage
There is no chain of authority from the landowner (my mother) to Premier Park, so no standing; that even if they did have standing, their signage was forbidding and did not make a contractual offer to motorists not displaying a permit. The font size on the signage is too small to be easily seen when entering the premises. [SIGNS ARE NOT LIT AND THE WORDS (PARTICULARLY THE £100) ARE NOT IN LARGE LETTERING (USE A RULER)]

I require that Premier Park provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent). My mother has no contract with Premier Park, nor a requirement to display a permit. In fact, agents working for Premier Park are trespassing on the landowners property by entering the allocated parking bay without the landowners permission.

This concludes my POPLA appeal. I attach a photo of the Notice to Keeper letter and of the sign displayed in the car park.


Yours faithfully,


{Name of Keeper}