Help needed re car park at Berry Head, Brixham

RobinofLoxley

Hello all, newbie here. I've had a PCN from Premier Park for Berry Head car park at Brixham, but there is an issue with this car park and I would like to hear what you think about it and advise.
The land of Berry Head which is a nature reserve is owned by Torbay Council but leased by them to Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust. The car park was the subject to a local Traffic Regulation Order which became effective on 11th March, 2013 from when the Council managed and enforced the car park. The Trust then informed the council that from 15th May, 2015 they would manage the car park themselves and it would be enforced for them by Premier Park Ltd. The issue is though the TRO of 2013 wasn't revoked and therefore continued to be in force. That is until recently after someone had been doing some digging with FOI requests to the Council, they originally said the TRO had been revoked in April 2016, though this now turns out to be untrue as the Council have recently posted a Notice to revoke the TRO on 24th August 2016 and have given the compulsory 6 weeks period for comments and objections before the revocation can be implemented.
I would think that this would mean as the operation and management of the car park is still the subject of local bye laws and Premier Park shouldn't be able to claim 'Parking Charges' from Registered Keepers under the POFA 2012 as it doesn't meet the requirements for 'Relevant Land'. Am I right in thinking this?
I was also wondering if this means that Premier Park have been falsely issuing PCN's all along as under the current TRO only the Council are entitled to enforce the rules for this car park and issue drivers with Penalty Charge notices for breaches. Perhaps someone with some legal knowledge can give their views on the legal situation.
Thanks for your help.

Fruitcake

Have a look at Post 7 from Edna Basher concerning the same problem at a different location.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5527635

I suggest you use the modified appeal from that post for your PCN.

I think you are correct and Premier Park should not be issuing tickets. Complain to the council, and make sure the local and national press and your MP know about this scam.

Coupon-mad

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

Hello all, newbie here. I've had a PCN from Premier Park for Berry Head car park at Brixham, but there is an issue with this car park and I would like to hear what you think about it and advise.

The land of Berry Head which is a nature reserve is owned by Torbay Council but leased by them to Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust. The car park was the subject to a local Traffic Regulation Order which became effective on 11th March, 2013 from when the Council managed and enforced the car park. The Trust then informed the council that from 15th May, 2015 they would manage the car park themselves and it would be enforced for them by Premier Park Ltd.

The issue is though the TRO of 2013 wasn't revoked and therefore continued to be in force.

That is until recently after someone had been doing some digging with FOI requests to the Council, they originally said the TRO had been revoked in April 2016, though this now turns out to be untrue as the Council have recently posted a Notice to revoke the TRO on 24th August 2016 and have given the compulsory 6 weeks period for comments and objections before the revocation can be implemented.

I would think that this would mean as the operation and management of the car park is still the subject of local bye laws and Premier Park shouldn't be able to claim 'Parking Charges' from Registered Keepers under the POFA 2012 as it doesn't meet the requirements for 'Relevant Land'. Am I right in thinking this?

I was also wondering if this means that Premier Park have been falsely issuing PCN's all along as under the current TRO only the Council are entitled to enforce the rules for this car park and issue drivers with Penalty Charge notices for breaches. Perhaps someone with some legal knowledge can give their views on the legal situation.
Thanks for your help.

Yep, I am aware of this at Berry Head - read about it somewhere, maybe pepipoo forum where they had a couple of Berry Head cases recently - and it's therefore able to be argued as part of a POPLA appeal that the land is/was subject to statutory control. As such there can be no POFA, no 'keeper liability' and the PCN lies on that basis.*

Also for POPLA stage (as long as the driver has NOT been given away!!) don't miss:

- the fact the photos have the car OUTSIDE on the public highway at Berry Head! No proof even of the car within the car park boundary, let alone parked.

- the fact that PP do not have the right '29 days/driver's details' information in the Notice to Keeper and (regardless of the TRO) are therefore unable to hold a keeper appellant liable. That wins at POPLA every single time.



*This is something to complain about to the DVLA, the fact that the PCNs here have misled recipients about liability for over a year. This land remained under statutory control, in fact.

RobinofLoxley

Thanks Fruitcake for the link and advice.

Yes that other issue in Kent is similar, though in the case of Berry Head the Council have leased the land to the Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust who have employed the cowboys Premier Park. I am surprised the Trust who are a registered charity have got themselves involved with these scammers Premier park, though I suppose the promise of a nice cheque coming in every month was hard to turn down.
I will be complaining to Torbay Council and the local press. The MP for Torbay is also campaigning about the issue of PPC's and I suggest anyone local contact him, unfortunately I can't as he is not my MP.
kevinjfoster.com/campaigns/unfair-penalty-charges-torbay

Coupon-mad

You can write to Mrs May and the DCLG, who are aware of the parking firms' tactics.

RobinofLoxley

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep, I am aware of this at Berry Head - read about it somewhere, maybe pepipoo forum where they had a couple of Berry Head cases recently - and it's therefore able to be argued as part of a POPLA appeal that the land is/was subject to statutory control. As such there can be no POFA, no 'keeper liability' and the PCN lies on that basis.*

Also for POPLA stage (as long as the driver has NOT been given away!!) don't miss:

- the fact the photos have the car OUTSIDE on the public highway at Berry Head! No proof even of the car within the car park boundary, let alone parked.

- the fact that PP do not have the right '29 days/driver's details' information in the Notice to Keeper and (regardless of the TRO) are therefore unable to hold a keeper appellant liable. That wins at POPLA every single time.



*This is something to complain about to the DVLA, the fact that the PCNs here have misled recipients about liability for over a year. This land remained under statutory control, in fact.

Thanks,
I am currently building my POPLA appeal as Premier Park expectedly rejected my initial one to them.
As you say they have failed to meet the requirements for POFA in several instances and also breached the BPA's COP many times. And you're right about the photos they use for evidence, they show the vehicle on the approach road and not actually in the car park. Another issue is they don't have planning permission for the cameras!
Also on the PCN the reasons for the charge are very ambiguous. It gives them as 'the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge' and 'the reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is Parking Session Expired or Unpaid'.
I still don't know exactly the reason why they are claiming this charge i.e. in what way has the driver supposed to have breached the rules. I have thought about writing to Premier Park and asking them to clarify this, do you think that is a good idea? After all with any other business and you receive an Invoice for services provided or work carried out you expect the invoice to give details of said work/service carried out. Though it seems PPC's don't follow standard business practices.

The concerning thing about Berry Head though is that Premier Park have been issuing PCN's and extracting money from innocent motorists for the last 16 months (and continue to do so) when the car park is still covered by a local authority TRO and local byelaws. The question is have they been doing this unlawfully?
I am surprised that the Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust a registered charity have colluded with a dodgy outfit like Premier Park and that the DVLA also deal with them.

Coupon-mad

The concerning thing about Berry Head though is that Premier Park have been issuing PCN's and extracting money from innocent motorists for the last 16 months (and continue to do so) when the car park is still covered by a local authority TRO and local byelaws. The question is have they been doing this unlawfully?

I agree. You could try a journalist - e.g. the guy at the Daily Mail whose email is shown near the end of the Theresa May thread. And send a report to Watchdog which is just filling in boxes online.

Fruitcake

My gob has been absolutely smacked that the pictures are taken of vehicles on a public road.

Surely Trading Standards, local council, local press, national press, DVLA and MPs must be informed about this scam.

RobinofLoxley

In my last post I commented on how ambiguous PP's reasons for issuing a PCN were.
The PCN said 'the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge' and 'the reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is Parking Session Expired or Unpaid'.
So which was it, an overstay or nothing paid at all ? When appealing to POPLA it would be useful to know exactly what supposed breach of contract I'm appealing against.
I wondered if I should write to PP and ask them what the actual reason is, otherwise I'm going to POPLA blind. I would like to know anyone's views as to whether that's a good idea or not, also does anyone have experience in previous appeals re this 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' nonsense.

Fruitcake

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

In my last post I commented on how ambiguous PP's reasons for issuing a PCN were.
The PCN said 'the vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge' and 'the reason we issued a PCN to the vehicle is Parking Session Expired or Unpaid'.
So which was it, an overstay or nothing paid at all ? When appealing to POPLA it would be useful to know exactly what supposed breach of contract I'm appealing against.
I wondered if I should write to PP and ask them what the actual reason is, otherwise I'm going to POPLA blind. I would like to know anyone's views as to whether that's a good idea or not, also does anyone have experience in previous appeals re this 'Parking Session Expired or Unpaid' nonsense.

Don't bother writing to the PPC, they will just say the ticket was issued correctly, or ask you who was driving.
Read the most recent successful appeals from the POPLA Decisions thread to construct your appeal. I'm sure the query you mention is in there.
I would also be telling PoPLA that since the cameras take images of vehicles on the road, there is no evidence that your vehicle was even in the car park.

RobinofLoxley

Thanks for the advice Fruitcake. as you say there's probably no point asking PP as I'm not likely to get anything out of them. I'll just have to wait and see what evidence they present at POPLA to find out what the alleged contravention is.