Premier Parking Ltd - Unfair Ticket

MysticGotenks

Hey there,

First off - I have read through your newbie thread and noted the following: Premiere Parking Ltd (not solutions) is a BPA member. I have copied the appeal letter in the thread to appeal on their website.

The driver drove into Trinity Street car park (Digbeth, Birmingham) around 7pm on a Saturday and was in there for 17 minutes. The cars were with another car. Now - the drivers never got out of the car as they were attempting to find out a) if they had to pay and b) where they could pay. The drivers stayed in the car with the belief being they would drive off if they could not get it sorted before a ticket-man arrived.

The signage was awful - the entire car park seems to be a protected graffiti destination, and as the entrance to the car park are crushed black cars, they are not even sure if there was any signage on the outside, even with it being dark.

Not being able to sort it, along with not being sure if it would be safe/legal to just leave the cars there (there was no clear signage near where the cars were parked that the car park was operated 24/7), the drivers decided to leave.

The keeper feel its unfair because: 1) no clear signage - the fact neither of the drivers saw any signs on the way in and around the empty car park probably isn't just coincidence. 2) If the drivers are in the wrong, the £100 ticket (reduced to £60 if paid within 2-weeks) is slightly ridiculous considering the equivalent pay cost would be under £1.

Again - it WILL be paid if there is no right to appeal.

Thanks guys.

Redx

almost all private parking tickets are deemed unfair , and there are tens of millions issued annually

for starters, edit the above and remove any hint of who was driving

THE DRIVER (note the wording) may have done what you say , so that is the terminology used

or do you not think parking companies monitor public forums like this one ??

as they say on police programmes

"you have the right to remain silent"
anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law"

how long was the "stay on site" ???

KeithP

MysticGotenks wrote: »

Alas, about a week later we both get a PCN through the door, addressed to the xxxxxxx (named - although I think as a BPA member they are allowed to get the drivers details off DVLA?)

Firstly, those PCNs were addressed to the Registered Keepers.

They can only get the Registered Keepers details from the DVLA.

The only way they can get the driver's details is if the Registered Keepers tell them.

Do not tell the PPC the names of the drivers.

MysticGotenks

Thanks for the reply and noted!

As for:

Redx wrote: »

how long was the "stay on site" ???

The ticket states 17 minutes.

MysticGotenks

KeithP wrote: »

Firstly, those PCNs were addressed to the Registered Keepers.

They can only get the Registered Keepers details from the DVLA.

The only way they can get the driver's details is if the Registered Keepers tell them.

Do not tell the PPC the names of the drivers.

PCN was indeed addressed to the Registered Keeper.

KeithP

MysticGotenks, you really should edit your original post further to reflect the comments in my earlier post.

Your sentence beginning with 'Alas' needs adjusting, and the word 'we' in your post needs replacing with 'the cars'.

MysticGotenks

KeithP wrote: »

MysticGotenks, you really should edit your original post further to reflect the comments in my earlier post.

Your sentence beginning with 'Alas' needs adjusting, and the word 'we' in your post needs replacing with 'the cars'.

Thanks. I have done so. Should the appeal go ahead then - with the correct wording, of course?

Redx

use the blue text appeal seeing as its a BPA member

clause #13 , grace periods may well apply , never mind poor signage , no contract etc

KeithP

MysticGotenks wrote: »

Thanks. I have done so.

No you haven't.

The word 'we' is still there - which could lead anyone reading this publicly available thread, a PPC for example, to the wrong conclusion.

Not sure why you have changed the word 'also', that isn't what I said at all.

You now need to edit the sentence beginning "About a week later...".
At the moment it tells the world the wrong thing.


N.B. once I've seen that you have edited your post I'll edit this post to avoid perpetuating the myth. --- done.

Redx

MysticGotenks wrote: »

2) If the drivers are in the wrong, the £100 ticket (reduced to £60 if paid within 2-weeks) is slightly ridiculous considering the equivalent pay cost would be under £1.

not according to the SUPREME COURT 2 years ago in the BEAVIS case (well , £85 actually but the BPA CoP and the IPC would and do deem £100 to be the limit)

so you and us may think so, but legally that argument wont wash and all the PPC has to do is say BEAVIS your honour , so dont open up that can of worms

here in manchester , you might get a tram ride for say £5 , but if you fail to have a valid ticket they say the STANDARD FARE is £100

MysticGotenks

KeithP wrote: »

No you haven't.

The word 'we' is still there - which could lead anyone reading this publicly available thread, a PPC for example, to the conclusion that the keeper and driver are the same person.

Not sure why you have changed the word 'also', that isn't what I said at all.

You now need to edit the sentence beginning "About a week later...".
At the moment it tells the world that the driver and keeper are the same person.


N.B. once I've seen that you have edited your post I'll edit this post to avoid perpetuating the myth.

I've adjusted it now - ctrl F came through.

I've removed the sentence as it isn't clear what needs adjusting, and frankly feel it's not worth getting caught up on at this time.

I'll do the same with regard to your last point.