Premier Parking Solutions - Windscreen ticket found from 25 days ago

Woppyman72

Hi,

I popped the bonnet on Saturday to fill oil on car and lo and behold, a parking ticket from PPS had become stuck on top of my car engine - slipped or blown off windscreen I presume.

It relates to an event 25 days ago, where the vehicle was parked in a car park which is P&D, or permit from the pub who own land. You can also use 'RinGo' a mobile app to pay. I checked the records and a valid ticket was purchased on day in question but 2 minutes after PCN issued.

Checked the newbies section, have the template to send for a IPC company. I gather I should send now rather than wait for NtK?

A few points though;

1) PPS display membership of BPA on signs, but they have not been members since March '16. Could this be relevant?
2) There is a sign on the entrance, not lit, which has basic details, but is compliant with the IPC Code of Practice.
3) The two signs within the car park are identical but have conflicting statements and are confusing (must display a ticket at all times, then later states not to leave the car park until payment confirmed if paying by mobile - inferring no need to display a ticket)

I guess my question is, if the signage complies with the IPC guidelines (notwithstanding point 1) then is there's much chance of using this as defence or are IPC guidelines flawed?
I suspect the fact the driver appears to have left the car park, regardless of the short time between PCN issuance and parking payment made, means unlikely to be set aside under any grace periods?

Redx

you can check the IPC CoP by downloading it from their website

the guidelines always favour the PPC, is its an old boys club

and for IPC members its less than 21 days for a windscreen ticket , its less than 28 days for a BPA member

so you may as well wait for the NTK to arrive between day 29 and day 56 if they wish to adhere to POFA2012, or it could be even later if they dont

they have 6 years to try enforcement , via MCOL if necessary

Coupon-mad

PPS display membership of BPA on signs, but they have not been members since March '16. Could this be relevant?

Only if they are misleading drivers with the AOS roundel. They are allowed to be BPA Corporate members (not a round logo).

Woppyman72

Thanks RedX.

Thoughts about chances of successfully defending it? PPS track record? I have succeeded once before with some excellent help from this forum - was dropped a few weeks before CC, but that was a blatant fraud from MIL/JAS,

Wops

Woppyman72

Ah, they are not using the rounded 'approved' logo. If they are Corporate members, can I avail myself of POPLA?

Coupon-mad

No you can't.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Parking_Solutions.html

PPS are not top players in court! I would not worry too much.

Woppyman72 wrote: »

I have succeeded once before with some excellent help from this forum - was dropped a few weeks before CC, but that was a blatant fraud from MIL/JAS,

Are you considering a DPA breach claim for compensation against JAS and MIL? I think JAS might be going down the pan, can't recall.

Redx

no chance of POPLA as ALL ipc members use the IAS , WITHOUT EXCEPTION , thats the whole point of them being IPC AOS members , BECAUSE THEY FAILED MORE AT POPLA

you dont get to choose , they do , and they chose the IAS by being IPC aos members

court is a lottery, so nobody can predict your "chances" if the court process was instigated , we have known losers win and "winners" lose , sometimes due to inconsistencies amongst judges

check parking pranksters blogs to see what a lottery it can be

Woppyman72

I wouldn't be suprised. JAS have been dumped by Staples/PC World round our way. Manager told me they caused legitimate customers too much grief.

Not sure if there was a DPA breach, but when I had the MIL situation there was no ticket, no NTK or anything. First I heard about it was a debt collection 12 months later. Also got the manager to write a letter saying he didn't support the legal action. Wisely MIL accepted a 'drop hands' offer.

I'm just working out the odds of success in this latest case. My cars must be jinxed with windscreen tickets, they never seem to stick!

Oh, here's another kicker - the day the vehicle had this last PCN there was also a key scratch down the whole of one side. 4 panels need respraying on a car less than a year old. I wonder if the PPS employee saw anything!

Coupon-mad

Every MIL case where the data originated by the DVLA supplying it to the parking firm, is a DPA breach. The only MIL case not worth claiming for compensation would be where the person supplied their own data by appealing a windscreen PCN early, so that the parking firm never went to the DVLA.

First step, prove the data came from the DVLA by emailing them and asking when JAS got your data and also ask, were JAS allowed to sell your data to MIL?

Get that in writing from the DVLA then complain to the ICO about data misuse by both companies. Get that upheld (an easy online report for you to do, just takes months to come back, but no rush) then you can claim.

Coupon-mad

I'm just working out the odds of success in this latest case.

You've seen the tiny odds in the BMPA link. Compare the number of PCNs issued by PPS, to the tiny number of claims made (remembering that some of those will be won by defendants). Most PPS cases never go near a court and that's not because everyone pays the idiots. I would not worry, honestly.

Also if they use Gladstones we win almost every defended case on here. They are worse than disorganised.

Woppyman72

Here is the slightly modified appeal I sent to PPS...

Thank you for your recent ‘Notification to Keeper’ outlining the claimed 'parking charge' that was applied to a vehicle that I own.

I am exercising my right not to identify the driver, but after making some initial enquiries I have ascertained that a valid parking ticket was purchased for the period in question. The parking ticket covers the period 16:09 - 18:09 on the 1st February 2017. I believe the driver was using the RingGo mobile phone application to purchase a ticket whilst the PCN was being issued. I would respectfully request that this charge is therefore cancelled.

If you decide not to cancel the alleged charge, as the keeper I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision about the best way to progress.

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for alleged breach of contract?
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you claim were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronized with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Please do not send debt recovery letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs. As a data privacy specialist by profession, I hereby inform you that I will take every legal recourse available to me if my personal information is shared with any other third parties for any reason in association with this alleged charge. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not give Premier Parking Solutions any permission to transfer or share my data with any third parties.

If you have obtained my personal information as the registered keeper from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of enforcement and court action for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter an objection to processing, also referred to as a ‘section 10 Notice’ under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days in alignment with ICO requirements. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Woppyman

Here is the response...

Further to your email of appeal received on 30/03/2017, regarding the above parking charge.
I have now had the opportunity to review this case and my findings are below.
Having considered the content of your letter we are prepared on this occasion, as a goodwill gesture, to cancel this parking charge notice. To clarify, the charge was issued because the vehicle was found to be protruding out of the parking bay. As per the site terms and conditions, the vehicle should not exceed the marked bay areas. Please find the attached photos showing the vehicle.
In future please ensure that you park within the marked bay area.
However, please be aware that future correctly issued parking charge notices will not be cancelled

[IMG][/img]

So, two lessons;

1) Don't pay, don't ignore it, do write a letter as the experts here advise and make use of templates in stickies
2) Don't assume the reason for the ticket. In my case it was due to trying to give adequate space to the white car next to me. I don't even think I am outside of the bay, merely on the white line.

It's not all good news....the following day the car was keyed front to back and is costing my insurance company £2,000 to repair. One of the reasons I try to give other cars plenty of room to get in out, so damage has to be malicious not negligent/accidental.

Thanks to all for your advice, second parking fine/invoice successfully defended through this site.