Premier Park- help with appeal

Cazilou

Hello, I have recieved a PCN from Premier Park asking me to pay a fine due to my car being parked in a car park for 7 minutes in a car park for a shop that was closed at the time of the apparent offence.

The sign at the entrance to this car park are small and only the welcome and P sign are visible from the road, especially at night when this ticket was issued. Having reviewed the sign since in daylight it says 'Private Parking', not clearly visible in the dark from the road, and then says something like 'for more information see the further signs inside the car park'. The signs inside the car park are also small and not easy to see in the dark but do state all the necessary jargon about cameras being used etc. however by point of reading these signs the driver would need to be already inside the car park and at breach of the contract that they didn't have knowledge existed until entering the car park! I have looked at many forums and as far as I can tell there needs to be clear signs visible without turning into the car park stating that there is a fine if you enter etc. am I right in thinking this would be a grounds for appeal?

I have also seen that people are appealing on the grounds that the NtK is not valid as it states 29 days and not 28. In the case of my NtK it does state this, can someone point me in the direction of the correct wording for using this as a point of appeal.

I was also wondering about requiring proof that they have permission from the landowner, especially as it says that is a private car park for 'X' shop but then says that 'X' are not involved in the parking management of this car park and cannot intervene in any disputes. This would suggest to me that Premier Park are not instructed by 'X' to manage the car park, although they may be renting the site and there could be another landowner who is responsible for the car park.

The other grounds for appeal, that upon reading forums seems like it is less likely to win an appeal anymore is the amount of fine vs loss. A £100 fine for a 7 minute stay in an empty car park outside of trading hours for the shop it is a car park for would surely be classed as excessive?

Sorry for the rambling post. I am aware that I need to appeal to PP first then wait for a POPLA code to then appeal to POPLA but just making sure I have my reasons for appeal straight before starting the process so I don't get it wrong.

Also how much detail do I need to go into in my first appeal to PP? Can someone point me in the direction of example appeal letters? I have been through the forum on here and on Pepipoo and have I think confused myself more with all the jargon!

Thanks, Cazilou

Fruitcake

It is not a fine. Please read the sticky thread for NEWBIES to undersand how to beat this scam.

Premier Park are BPA members so you should send the BPA template in blue that you will find in the NEWBIES thread. Copy and paste. That's it, stage one done. Do not reveal who was driving.
You can if you wish carefully add that the driver was not given a grace period which is a breach of the BPA CoP.

Then start researching the most recent successful appeals from the POPLA Decisions thread. Forget the loss appeal point. That's a dead duck since the Beavis case last year.

Coupon-mad

I have also seen that people are appealing on the grounds that the NtK is not valid as it states 29 days and not 28. In the case of my NtK it does state this, can someone point me in the direction of the correct wording for using this as a point of appeal.

PP have been (up until October) very easy for a keeper appellant to beat at POPLA. Search the forum for 'Premier' and you will find that very appeal point several times over, winning every time.

EDIT (NOV): POPLA ARE HOPELESS, HAVING DECIDED WRONGLY THAT 'WITHIN 29 DAYS' IS COMPLIANT WHEN 'WITHIN 28 DAYS' WAS NOT.

NEITHER ARE ANYTHING LIKE COMPLIANT.

KEEPER LIABILITY CAN'T OCCUR UNTIL 'WITHIN' AT LEAST 31 DAYS - NO SOONER - AND IT VARIES EVEN LONGER IF A PCN IS POSTED ON A THURSDAY OR FRIDAY.

Cazilou

Thank you I will get on to that now. I have been researching all afternoon and it amazes me that these companies are still trying this with people with the amount of appeals that are fought and won against them. I guess they prey on the vulnerable.

beamerguy

Cazilou wrote: »

Thank you I will get on to that now. I have been researching all afternoon and it amazes me that these companies are still trying this with people with the amount of appeals that are fought and won against them. I guess they prey on the vulnerable.

It's just a scam, nigerian style

We know it's a scam, the parking companies know it's a scam.
The BPA and IPC know it's a scam
BUT ...... The government don't seem to know, a letter to Theresa May asking why she allows this scam would not go amiss

Cazilou

Coupon-mad wrote: »

PP are very easy for a keeper appellant to beat at POPLA, very easy. Search the forum for 'Premier' and you will find that very appeal point several times over, winning every time.

Can I just check. When contacting POPLA using this (and other NtK failings that I have found on doing further research) do I need to include a copy (i.e. scan) of the NtK or will they already have this information to see what the original wording was?

Coupon-mad

The PPC has to produce the NTK but you can also put a scan of it embedded as a nice pic in your POPLA appeal to illustrate your point and break up the wall of words for the bored POPLA Assessor!

Cazilou

OK thanks I will put in a scan as well, just incase they supply them with a different NTK for any reason. I also have lots of pretty photos to add some colour 😊

Sorry for so many questions but I want to get it right. I have checked the car park signs against the bpa code of practice and they don't comply in the slightest, is the bpacop a legal document i.e. Has to be followed by members or is it just guidance?

Coupon-mad

It's not regulation, just a Code of minimum standards (a low bar, then!) but the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case decided that they were effectively binding requirements within a 'regulatory' style framework. And those Judges were at pains to state that the signs in that case were in large lettering and the charge itself was 'prominent' which partly led to their finding that Mr Beavis was deemed to have 'agreed' the charge.

You will find 'template' examples of all the usual POPLA appeal points recently posted in 'POPLA Decisions' which does include a War and Peace signage demolition job - as long as the driver is not implied, don't be afraid to add to it and make it even longer!

Cazilou

Thank you, I had seen your post about signage in the popla decisions sticky and I am planning to use some of the wording when I finally get some time to formulate all the info I have into an appeal.

I am mainly relying on the NTK not being suitable but I am also going to state as one of the points that the signage is inadequate. In this instance it is not the size of writing (although it wouldn't surprise me if the text was too small) but the wording on the sign. The bpacop states that it must state wording from a list of phrases in group 1 but the sign in question doesn't have anything remotely like any of the phrases in group 1, vital information that had it been on the sign the driver may possibly have not entered in the first place, I think it's a valid argument, I will read it all through again when I come to writing that part of the appeal but as far as I could tell it doesn't comply.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's a valid argument and we're happy when people think about and research what to include and not necessarily copy stuff verbatim. Sounds like you have your head around the scam.