Premier Park appeal from keeper but first reminder to driver

Coupon-mad

No, never ever make POPLA comments lengthy. Boil it down to bullet points. Don't reiterate your appeal or introduce new evidence.

because it amuses me that PPL freely admit that parking was paid for - just with an incorrectly entered VIN - loss to PPL = £0.

It might amuse you but the 'no loss' argument has no legs. Do not even mention it, POPLA will throw the Beavis case at you.

eeq

OK, first pass at the POPLA response. The first point is long, but PPL brought it up in their (41 page) submission.

---

Re: POPLA code 1234567890

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing following the receipt of the email from Premier Park Ltd containing their response to my appeal. I wish to respond to points made in their submission.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and have at no point made representation on behalf of the driver; I appealed to Premier Park, and the POPLA code was issued to me.

I was coerced into identified the driver, as Premier Park made it clear in their communication that they would not accept my appeal to them without so doing. This is a breach of the BPA code.

Despite this identification, they considered my appeal to them, and issued me, the keeper, with the POPLA verification code. At no point, to date, has the driver been issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

For this reason alone, the appeal should be granted.

Additionally:

• The contract supplied is heavily redacted, and is missing key, relevant sections (including details about: the service supplied, any site specific conditions, PCNs, appeals, POPLA, and much more). Further, the names and signatures of the parties have been redacted making it impossible to determine who signed the contract, and the standing they had.
• Other than the identification of the driver, Premier Park have offered no evidence to defend my claim that the notice was not POFA 2012 compliant.
• The submission from Premier Park confirms my statement that parking was paid for, and that they took money for the parking period in question, paid for in good faith.

In summary, Premier Park have, from their own submission:

1. Produced evidence that they have failed to comply with the BPA code.
2. Failed to show lack of standing/authority to issue a charge.
3. Produced no evidence to defend my claims of not meeting POFA 2012.
4. Demonstrated that parking was, in fact, paid for.

The appeal should thus be granted.

Yours, etc.

eeq

I should say that PPL have thrown Beavis into their submission. Can/should I make reference to Parkingeye vs Cargius?

eeq

I've still not received my evidence pack by post, so I'm not sure what the timing of all this will be. I've edited my submission a little: I spotted that PPL have inserted (what appears to be) a standard paragraph about the Beavis case; I've also noticed that their terms and conditions make no reference to making payment on the same day as parking, so I've offered to go and purchase a ticket for the length of time required - once they've refunded the money they've conceded has been paid.

Revised response:

Re: POPLA code 1234567890

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing following receipt of an email from Premier Park Ltd containing their response to my appeal. I wish to respond to points made in their submission.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and have at no point made representation on behalf of the driver; I appealed to Premier Park, and the POPLA code was issued to me.

I was coerced into identified the driver, as Premier Park made it clear in their communication that they would not accept my appeal to them without so doing. This is a breach of the BPA code.

Despite this identification, they considered my appeal to them, and issued me, the keeper, with the POPLA verification code. At no point, to date, has the driver been issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

For this reason alone, the appeal should be granted.

Premier Park appear to have inserted a standard paragraph making reference to ParkingEye vs Beavis. In my appeal I made no remarks "that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss." Being as they raise the case, however, it would appear that ParkingEye vs Cargius is a more relevant case to consider as this not a ‘free’ car park.

Premier Park make much of their terms and conditions (which seem to be divided amongst a number of different locations). One item that is missing is the requirement to pay on the same day as the period parked. Given that, I (as keeper) am more than happy to purchase a parking ticket for the length of time required, once Premier Park have returned to me the money they concede has already been paid to them.

Additionally:

• The contract supplied is heavily redacted, and is missing key, relevant sections (including details about: the service supplied, any site specific conditions, PCNs, appeals, POPLA, and much more). Further, the names and signatures of the parties have been redacted making it impossible to determine who signed the contract, and the standing they had.
• Other than the identification of the driver, Premier Park have offered no evidence to defend my claim that the notice was not POFA 2012 compliant.
• The submission from Premier Park confirms my statement that parking was paid for, and that they took money for the parking period in question, paid for in good faith.

In summary, Premier Park have, from their own submission:

1. Produced evidence that they have failed to comply with the BPA code.
2. Failed to show lack of standing/authority to issue a charge.
3. Produced no evidence to defend my claims of not meeting POFA 2012.
4. Demonstrated that parking was, in fact, paid for.

In light of all this, I request that the appeal is granted.

Yours, etc.

Coupon-mad

You won't get a postal copy of evidence if you have had the full evidence (photos, contract et al) by email.

I would not mention the Beavis case, loss, or Cargius, because it's muddying the waters and the Assessor might think you are trying to add new evidence. I've crossed out a couple of things - stick to comments on the evidence and the really important stuff.

I suggest you make it clearer that the driver was identified and as such, the charge fails the first condition for 'keeper liability':

eeq wrote: »

Revised response:

Re: POPLA code 1234567890

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing following receipt of an email from Premier Park Ltd containing their response to my appeal. I wish to respond to points made in their submission.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, and have at no point made representation on behalf of the driver; I appealed to Premier Park, and the POPLA code was issued to me.

I was coerced into identified the driver, as Premier Park made it clear in their communication that they would not accept my appeal to them without so doing. This is a breach of the BPA code. Despite this identification, they considered my appeal to them, and issued me, the keeper, with the POPLA verification code.

At no point, to date, has the driver been issued with a Parking Charge Notice so this operator has brought the wrong party to POPLA. Schedule 4 states:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(2) The right under this paragraph applies only if —
(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
5(1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

For this reason alone, the appeal must be granted because this operator has no right to recover this parking charge from me, the keeper, when the driver's name and address has already been provided. The fact the POPLA code was issued to me and they continue to pursue me - the keeper - is a fatal error on their part.

[STRIKE]Premier Park appear to have inserted a standard paragraph making reference to ParkingEye vs Beavis. In my appeal I made no remarks "that the parking charge notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss." Being as they raise the case, however, it would appear that ParkingEye vs Cargius is a more relevant case to consider as this not a ‘free’ car park.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]Premier Park make much of their terms and conditions (which seem to be divided amongst a number of different locations). One item that is missing is the requirement to pay on the same day as the period parked. Given that, I (as keeper) am more than happy to purchase a parking ticket for the length of time required, once Premier Park have returned to me the money they concede has already been paid to them.[/STRIKE]

Additionally:

• The contract supplied is heavily redacted, and is missing key, relevant sections (including details about: the service supplied, any site specific conditions, PCNs, appeals, POPLA, and much more). Further, the names and signatures of the parties have been redacted making it impossible to determine who signed the contract, and the standing they had.
• Other than the identification of the driver, Premier Park have offered no evidence to defend my claim that the notice was not POFA 2012 compliant.
• The submission from Premier Park confirms my statement that parking was paid for, and that they took money for the parking period in question, paid for in good faith.

In summary, Premier Park have, from their own submission:

1. Produced evidence that they have failed to comply with the BPA code.
2. Failed to show lack of standing/authority to issue a charge.
3. Produced no evidence to defend my claims of not meeting POFA 2012.
4. Demonstrated that parking was, in fact, paid for.

In light of all this, I request that the appeal is granted, not least because they have no right to recover this charge from any keeper when the driver has already been identified.

Yours, etc.

eeq

Thank Coupon-mad, that's really helpful; I'd only put in the two deleted paragraphs to counter PPL's submission - especially introducing Beavis into the mix.

Having appealed by post, my letter from POPLA makes it clear that I will receive PPL's information by post, and then have 14 days to comment on it. I assume that your advice would be to respond to the email, rather than looking to technicalities about timing ant not getting information by post. My concern would be that the information posted to me might contain something different to the email.

Coupon-mad

I hadn't thought of that, you having 14 days to comment is interesting.

However, in your case it is such a nailed-on winning point that they've issued a POPLA code to the WRONG person, a keeper when they already have the name and address of the driver (another person) that I'd be tempted to email POPLA the above comments now to info@popla.co.uk with your 10 digit POPLA code and 'My comments on the operator's emailed evidence' in the subject line.

You could always add a line that no postal version of evidence has been received so you reserve the right to email more comments if the operator posts a different version to you within the 14 days you are allowed to comment.

eeq

Appealing to POPLA by post would appear to be a good way of gaining time: I've had the email submission from PPL for nearly a week, and I've just had a letter from POPLA telling me that I should have had the submission from the Operator already, and that I now have 14 days from the date of the POPLA letter to make comments in writing, or by telephone (email is not given as an option). Total potential time from appeal is about 3 weeks - this may be useful if other appellants want/need/might benefit from stretching the timescale out a bit.

I'm going to send the letter above today or tomorrow, and also send an email letting POPLA know that I've done that, in case it gets mixed up in the Christmas post.

Now I just have to hope that POPLA see it as clearly as everyone else does!

eeq

Result arrived in the post this morning. The appeal has been allowed, and the operator needs to cancel the charge. I'll post the full text in the POPLA Decisions thread (downside of appealing by post is having to type it all out), but the summary is:

- considered that name and address of driver were not provided to operator
- operator failed to provide evidence that driver details were supplied
- insufficient evidence to show driver identification
- cannot determine who operator is holding liable, or that PCN issued correctly

Many thanks to Coupon-mad for all your help.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant!