Parking Tickets at St Mary's Church Southampton - Premier Park

Jones578

Hi all, I think some people here will probably ask me to check out the sticky thread first, however please excuse me for opening this new thread due to the special occasion...

I just got married in St Mary's Church Southampton 2 weeks ago. Address is St Mary Street, Southampton SO14 1AQ: https:// goo.gl/maps/8WfjSHXXRLE2
They have an on-site carpark that is located right next to the church building.
The carpark is managed by Premier Park and is monitored by an ANPR cameras that is located at the only entrance of the carpark.

Parking restriction applies all day and the parking sign is shown as below:

http:// i66.tinypic.com/123xekp.jpg

While most of our guests understood that there is a CCTV camera in place and they have to pay for the entire duration for they parking (I have even mentioned about this in our wedding invitation), some of them did not realise they have to pay and some of them have over stayed due to the ceremony being slightly longer than expected.
So far I know at least 5 guests have received their PCN from Premier Park due to over stay and 1 guest did not pay at all.

This is the PCN that they have received in post (with all personal information covered in black) that demands £100 (or £60 if pay within 14 days, which will be due on this Sunday):

http:// i66.tinypic.com/2011r4i.jpg

http:// i64.tinypic.com/2q1z6v7.jpg

I have contacted the church vicar and ask if the Church of England can help waiving the charge, however he said 'there is nothing we can do about this as the guest was fully aware of the parking regulations, and so is capable for extending the parking without any cover'.

I am unsure what I should advise our guests to do.
I have checked a few other threads on here that were also related to this very car park, however those threads did not conclude if they managed to waive the charge at the end or not.
Would Premier Park take people to court if they ignore the invoice?
If we appeal, what ground do we have and how likely we can waive it?
Some of our guests are not comfortable to appeal to POPLA due to the potential of losing out the 'early payment discount'.

Your advice will be much appreciated.

---- Sorry I am unable to post link, so the URLs above have been broken with space----

Quentin

The ppc won't be interested in the special occasion.

So advise all recipients to follow the newbies faq thread advice

Edna_Basher

Pepipoo user “Michellespice” has just reported her successful POPLA appeal regarding a Premier Park charge. Her success was down to Premier’s Notice to Keeper failing to meet the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) meaning that they forfeited the right to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the charge. Here’s the link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106184

Each of your guests just need to take the following steps, taking care not to reveal who was driving:

1) Each guest goes through the motions of appealing to Premier in their capacity as their vehicle’s keeper
2) Premier will then go through the motions of considering their appeal before sending their standard rejection letter (including a POPLA code)
3) With assistance from this forum, each guest escalates their appeal to POPLA, using Premier’s non-compliance with POFA as the primary appeal point.
4) POPLA upholds each appeal and instructs Premier to cancel the charge. Job done.

Here’s the sort of initial letter that we would write to Premier (which can be submitted to them online).

“Dear Sir,

Formal Dispute - Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Premier Park Ltd (“Premier”) as a Notice to Keeper. I confirm that I am the keeper of this vehicle for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally dispute the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s keeper. However, there are a number of reasons why Premier’s Notice to Keeper did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 in particular.

Premier has now forfeited its right to claim keeper liability. Therefore please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge or alternatively, should you still believe that you have a valid claim, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate this dispute to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.


Yours faithfully etc.”


Following the submission of their appeal, your guests need to beware of Premier’s initial reply which they use to trick the appellant into revealing who was driving. This first letter is to be ignored – Premier’s standard rejection letter (with POPLA Code) will follow in due course.

Coupon-mad

Make sure EVERY person appeals as 'registered keeper' (or just 'keeper' if it's a company car, or 'hirer' if it was a hire car). NOT NOT NOT 'driver'!!

They should all use the blue writing template from the NEWBIES thread or a version like Edna Basher's shown above. No-one should be posting these snail-mail (not even recorded) please, everyone does this online, not ticking 'driver'.

See the latest PP case won at POPLA today (as mentioned by Edna Basher) for an understanding of why it is imperative NO-ONE contacts PP saying what hapened/who was driving, because all these appellants can win on 'no keeper liability'.

Spread the word now and warn them to ignore PP's first letter asking who was driving, as Edna Basher mentions. Saying it again - tell everyone - DO NOT say who was driving. Get together at POPLA stage with a decent appeal copied from a recent PP one.

P.S. - congratulations!!

nigelbb

homaho wrote: »

I have contacted the church vicar and ask if the Church of England can help waiving the charge, however he said 'there is nothing we can do about this as the guest was fully aware of the parking regulations, and so is capable for extending the parking without any cover'.

Frankly that is a pretty $!!!!!! attitude on the part of the vicar considering the many hundreds of pounds that the OP paid the church for their wedding.

Why doesn't the church offer a flat rate all encompassing fee to cover parking for all the guests & roll it into the fee for the wedding? Say £50-100? This situation must be a weekly occurrence. There are always bound to be guests who don't see the signs or don't have change or mis-type their registration.

fisherjim

And they wonder why their churches are empty, seems like the church are using this to prop up their Sunday collection!

Jones578

Dear all, thank you so much for your advice!
I will ask everyone to appeal based on Edna Basher's advice.
Will keep you guys updated once I hear anything back from my guests!

Once again thank you for all your helps!!

Jones578

Dear all,

Thank you for your previous advice.

Some of my guests have received a letter from Premier Park in late July asking for the details of the driver.
I have asked them to ignore that.
The letter has been uploaded here for your reference: http:// i66.tinypic.com/29cqg7n.jpg

My guests then have received a further letter that contains a POPLA appeal code: http:// i65.tinypic.com/inqx44.jpg

Would it be better to send POPLA a physical letter or fill in the online form?
If they are filling in the POPLA online form, I suppose the reason of appealing the parking charge should be 'Other'?

I have slightly amended the letter that was used in the Pepipoo post as mentioned by Edna Basher below:

Dear Popla

POPLA Ref. 666XXXXXXX - Premier Park Limited Parking Charge Notice Ref. 4XXXXX

I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park Limited (“Premier”) in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at St Mary's Church, Southampton on 18 June 2016. I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

1) Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA.
2) Premier does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
3) The car park signage was inadequate.
4) The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA (subject to its compliance with the requirements of POFA) to pursue the vehicle’s keeper for the parking charge in the event that the driver did not pay the charge.

1) Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It merely stated the times which the vehicle entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the start and end of the period of parking.
• Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (b), the Notice to Keeper 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 requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not 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 (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 requirements of Sch.4 Para (2) (h), the Notice to Keeper did not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may allow my appeal.

Should Premier try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https:// popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......

.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.

2) Premier has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park

I do not believe that Premier has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that Premier merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3) Premier’s signage was inadequate

Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver. As the sign is only visible at a high ground near the exit of the parking area, it is unclear that you are entering a zone where immediate cost is being incurred.

Another problem with the sign is that the information regarding any contravention leading to a fine is EXTREMELY small, compared to the rest of the sign. The sign also offers a premium rate telephone number to contact Premier Park ltd. BPA code of practice 18.7 The company (Premier Park ltd) should offer a local rate number, not a 0871 premium rate number. The sign does not show who the owner of the land is.
I therefore require contemporary photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.
I am also unhappy that no warning is given in this car park that ANPR is in use. BPA code of practice 21.1 states: You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
The sign DOES NOT MENTION ANPR. There is no notice of recording. The sign does not say 'NO WAITING' or 'YOU ARE BEING RECORDED ON FILM'


In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have good reason to believe that Premier’s signs did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver.

In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that Premier was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA. The car park signage simply failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours faithfully

Any comments?

Umkomaas

homaho wrote: »

Dear all,

Thank you for your previous advice.

Some of my guests have received a letter from Premier Park in late July asking for the details of the driver.
I have asked them to ignore that.
The letter has been uploaded here for your reference: http:// i66.tinypic.com/29cqg7n.jpg

My guests then have received a further letter that contains a POPLA appeal code: http:// i65.tinypic.com/inqx44.jpg

Would it be better to send POPLA a physical letter or fill in the online form?
If they are filling in the POPLA online form, I suppose the reason of appealing the parking charge should be 'Other'?

I have slightly amended the letter that was used in the Pepipoo post as mentioned by Edna Basher below:



Any comments?

I guess when you refer to guests (plural) you are talking about a group who have received one ticket? Or are we talking of individual guests who have each received a ticket? Also confirm that they will be submitting the POPLA appeal in their own name(s), separately if more than one ticket.

Turning to the POPLA appeal, anything that carries Edna Basher 'stamp of approval' is always good.

Just a couple of comments.

1. If you're arguing on insufficient/defective/non-compliant signage you should be taking and sending photos of it as part of the POPLA appeal.

2. You haven't dismantled the Beavis case in your appeal - it's almost inevitable that the PPC will pray in aid Beavis. Here's a recent thread with a thorough dismantling of Beavis. Read through it, but please don't blind copy and paste the Beavis section, make sure that it has resonance with your (guests) situation.

There may be other stuff in the appeal that you might wish to pick up from, but same caveat about blind copy and pasting.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71071381&postcount=15

The POPLA appeal should be sent electronically via their website. There is a character limit, so you will need to convert the appeal to a .pdf file and attach it. In the appeal window just put words to the effect 'Please find POPLA appeal, reference number (the 10-digit verification code), PPC name and car VRM, attached as a .pdf file'. If it's attached correctly there will be a small icon showing on the page to confirm that.

You should mark of the reason for appeal as 'Other'. Take a screen shot before pressing the 'Submit' button. Don't miss the deadline.

HTH

EDITED TO ADD AFTER A FURTHER CHECK OF THE APPEAL

4) The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA (subject to its compliance with the requirements of POFA) to pursue the vehicle’s keeper for the parking charge in the event that the driver did not pay the charge.

You have this as one of your four bullet point headers, but there isn't any corresponding fleshing out of the argument in the main body of your appeal.

Edna_Basher

Hi homaho

There’s an additional argument to include in your Appeal Point 1 (non-compliant Notice to Keeper).

Contrary to the requirements of Sch. 4 Para (2) (f), the Notice to Keeper did not 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.

I think the text of your Appeal Points 3 and 4 on signage have become intertwined. I’d keep the Point 3 about inadequate signage quite simple; you can add more detail in your rebuttal of Premier’s evidence pack (should Premier even bother going that far).

Here’s a suggestion for Points 3 and 4, plus an additional Point 5 to cover the signs’ failure to warn motorists about what the data captured by the ANPR cameras will be used for.

3) The car park signage was inadequate

Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, based on my knowledge of other Premier signs, I have good reason to believe that the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver.

I therefore require contemporary photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.

4) The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have good reason to believe that Premier’s signs do not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier shall reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver. In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for drivers to conclude that Premier is one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA.

5) The car park signage did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. Premier’s signs do not comply with these requirements.

You may wish to add as Appeal Point 6 an explanation as to why your case is distinctly different to the one considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Umkomaas has pointed you in the right direction.

For a belt-and-braces approach, you and your guests can also send the PDF copies of your respective appeals by e-mail to info@popla.co.uk - hopefully Premier will be overwhelmed by the blizzard of strong appeals and chuck in the towel early to avoid having to fork out for POPLA's fees.

Jones578

Dear all, thanks a lot for your comments!!
I wouldn't know what to do without your helps...

Umkomaas, yes it was multiple tickets that were sent to multiple guests.
Some of them were obviously upset by it.

I can understand that the church may want to introduce this kind of private parking company to deter football fans from parking at the church (the church is quite near the St Mary's Stadium, and it was actually where the Southampton FC was first started back in 1890s), but I cannot imagine how badly it will deter people from going to church altogether...

Anyway, thanks for the advices from Umkomaas and Edna Basher, I have amended the letter and saved it as a easy-to-follow guide for our guests here: https:// docs.google.com/document/d/1jytjqDGUIW0rx0j9xtToHl_-QcswTJ191t3y1TizyxM/edit?usp=sharing
I have copied the entire letter below:

Dear Popla

POPLA Ref. 666XXXXXXX - Premier Park Limited Parking Charge Notice Ref. 4XXXXX


I write to lodge my formal appeal in respect of the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued by Premier Park Limited (“Premier”) in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at St Mary's Church, Southampton on 18 June 2016. I confirm that on that date, I was the vehicle’s keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”).

I set out below why I am not liable for this parking charge:

Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA.
Premier does not have the standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park.
The car park signage was inadequate.
The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA (subject to its compliance with the requirements of POFA) to pursue the vehicle’s keeper for the parking charge in the event that the driver did not pay the charge.
The car park signage did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras
The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis


1) Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA

In order to rely upon POFA to hold a vehicle's keeper liable for unpaid parking charges, an operator must deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully complies with all of POFA’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why Premier’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.


Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. It merely stated the times which the vehicle entered and exited the car park; these times do not equate to the start and end of the period of parking.
Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (b), the Notice to Keeper 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 requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not 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 (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 requirements of Sch. 4 Para (2) (f), the Notice to Keeper did not 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.
Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para (2) (h), the Notice to Keeper did not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.


Consequently, Premier has forfeited its right to use the provisions of POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from me as the vehicle’s keeper and for this reason alone, POPLA may allow my appeal.

Should Premier try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a registered keeper can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:


https:// popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2


I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:


“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......

.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.


2) Premier has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers using this particular car park

I do not believe that Premier has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that Premier merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require Premier to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits Premier to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

3) Premier’s signage was inadequate

Although Premier is aware that the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, based on my knowledge of other Premier signs, I have good reason to believe that the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver.

I therefore require contemporary photographic evidence of all of the car park signs, including details of the height at which each of the signs was positioned and the font size of the various wording upon the signs.


4) The car park signage failed notify the driver that Premier intended to exercise its rights under POFA

In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


Paragraph 69: Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

I have good reason to believe that Premier’s signs did not include as a core term any condition advising the driver that Premier would reserve the right under POFA to hold the vehicle’s keeper liable for the parking charge should this not be paid by the driver.

In accordance with the rule of contra proferentem it is reasonable for the driver to conclude that Premier was one of the many private parking companies that choose not to use the provisions of POFA.

5) The car park signage did not properly warn motorists of the purpose of the operation of the ANPR cameras

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. Premier’s signs do not comply with these requirements.


6) The charge is a penalty, breaches the CRA and is not saved by the decision in ParkingEye vs Beavis


This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position.

At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment in 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' it was held:

''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times,endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ''

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty;’ ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine:
''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination.

At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company:
''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge out of all proportion to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man, regardless of whether in the small print, the sign may have said somewhere 'enter the full registration'. A huge charge arising under the excuse of such a minor term is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA, enacted after the Beavis parking event) supports a consumer's position in at least two ways:

the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of penalty prominent, to enter the FULL VRN. The CRA states: ''A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract or a written consumer notice is transparent. To be transparent it must be expressed in plain and intelligible language and be legible...any subject matter terms must not be hidden in any small print otherwise the price and the subject matter terms will be assessed for "fairness". ''
Under Schedule 2 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' it includes: ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

As this charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification.

Based upon the above-detailed representations, I respectfully request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours faithfully

If there are no further comments, I will send it to our guests and ask them to reply individually asap.

Many thanks!!!!