Unfair Parking appeal - Premier Park

Lombardo

Hi
Received a Parking Charge Notice for parking in a car park that used to be free after 6pm. No notices advising that the policy had changed etc and details covered in my appeal letter to them. I used the template from MSE however they came straight back to me saying i need to give the name of the driver as per Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. (full response below).
Please can someone advise me if I have gone wrong already or whether I just need to sit tight for now?!?
All help appreciated as this is bad enough, its proper doing my head in...
Thanks a million
A

Response from Premier Park
We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal, on behalf of the driver, appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle.

We note your comments and must refer you to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. This is available to view online at:


We must therefore request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable UK postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN. This information should be provided by 23rd November 2017. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit

Please respond by return or by filling in the Transfer of Liability form on the reverse of the PCN and posting it to Premier Park


My initial appeal letter
In relation to the parking ticket you issued to me on 13 October 2017 I believe it was unfairly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

• There was insufficient signage to indicate that the parking rules had changed
The car park in question had previously been completely free of charge, however the parking rules changed in December 2015. Up until your recent change, the car park had been pay and display up until 18:00 hours, after which time it was free of charge.

Upon arriving to the car park, the driver was not aware of any signs indicating that there were new charging rules applicable in the car park. I appreciate it was dark and poor weather conditions at the time, however a photo taken for the purposes of this communication do not evident anything that would draw the attention of a driver who had used the car park previously, especially as there had previously been signs and machines when it was charge free after 18:00.

I accept that there are new signs in place at the car park, however the statement regarding charging times is in a smaller font than the charges and not easily readable without approaching the signs, even if a driver did notice them.

Therefore as the driver was not aware of any charges and there was no clear signage to explain that the relevant parking restrictions had changed, this means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence, I have gathered as proof.


• The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £1 which is the charge for the 3 hours the car was in the car park. The car park is large and was fairly empty, therefore the presence of the car did not prevent any other car parking in the car park. Given the sophistication of your operation you could easily confirm that this is the first time this car have used the car park since you changed the rules and I therefore feel the charge you have asked for is excessive.


As you are a member of the British Parking Association I expect that you will behave with due decorum and cancel this charge, thus closing the matter. However, should reason and decency not prevail in your decision, under the Freedom of Information Act, please can you provide me with details of the amount of parking charge notices issued for the car park, prior to you taking over the car park, and the number of parking charge notices since you have taken over the car park, up until and including the day my charge was issued. Please can you also break this data down further by month and also clarify which of those charges were issued as a result of patrons using the car park after 18:00.

I notice from the Silver Blades website that the car parking section does not clearly indicate that charges are now applicable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you have displayed responsible notifications and advised patrons accordingly of the change in rules, then it is reasonable to assume that there wasn’t an increase in parking charge notices issued and that you could not be considered to have carried out the bare minimum requirements in order to specifically increase the profits of your organization. However, any indication that there was a rise following the transition would call in to question your suitability as a member of the BPA and placing the consumer at the heart of your thinking. I would be interested to discuss the matter with them if the charge is not cancelled.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only correspondence you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised.

Yours faithfully

Redx

ignore their response and await the popla code, as you correctly thought

its much easier for the PPC (any) if they know the drivers details

you are under no obligation to provide them

ps:- not a gpeol died 2 years ago with the BEAVIS case

Lombardo

Thanks Redx, I take it that means I am essentially moving straight to POPLA and not getting the chance to have it kicked out initially and then pay the reduced price though?

Basically does, that effect my appeal time?

Sorry if i am asking really basic questions

KeithP

Why are you considering the 'reduced charge'?

Surely you are aiming towards paying nothing?

£50, £100, £1000... what does it matter if you pay nothing?

Anyway, that aside, it is very important that the PPC does not know who the driver is.
Without that information the PPC needs to transfer liability to the keeper and many of them find that difficult.

If they cannot transfer liability to the keeper, then it means the speculative invoice does not need to be paid.

In my opinion Lombardo, you would be wise to remove the second sentence from your post immediately above this one.

This post, linked from post #1 of the NEWBIES thread, explains in more detail why one should not identify the driver:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69906180#post69906180

Ralph-y

what !!! :mad:


deleted ...............................

you really need to get up to speed

please read through

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

you are / where about to give away one of your best defences ....

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Redx

private parking companies routinely deny appeals, so dont assume you have failed, they were always going to reject your first appeal because there is no profit in accepting it

its a paper excercise to get a popla code

this is a game, you have been picked whether you like it or not

as keeper you may well win 1-0 on a technicality

Lombardo

Thanks KeithP, I have amended the sentence as you suggested.

Thanks for the info too on why its important to keep the driver info secret. I've already told them i am the registered keeper so must admit i dont really get it but i do appreciate all the help and i feel i am learning.

just being realistic about my options, there is always the chance that my case isnt strong enough and then it is risk to reward and whether it is worth the time and effort! I get the impression this wont just go away without a lot of work.

Thanks again

Redx

in the motoring world , there are a mix of words

THE OWNER
THE REGISTERED KEEPER
THE KEEPER
THE DRIVER

one entity may be all of the above , or only one of the above

all appeals are done as KEEPER unless its a leased car in which case they may be the hirer or lessee

THE HIRER
THE LESSEE

the parking companies (parking scumpanies) want the drivers details so they can cut their ***** off , so only a fool tells them

remember what they say in cop shows

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

never make it easy for these sc@mmers , they issue tickets at the rate of one every 7 seconds according to DONT PAY WE`LL TAKE IT AWAY

Lombardo

Thanks Ralph-y and Redx, I really needed that and appreciate that I need to get up to speed.

I also like the reference to cop shows, just a shame i cant claim diminished responsibility and have it all go away!

Thanks again
a

Redx

Lombardo wrote: »

just a shame i cant claim diminished responsibility and have it all go away!

most newbies can claim that due to the sheer number of times we have to admonish them for using the words

"ME , MYSELF , I"

and drivers do not get postal pcn NTK notices

the parking scumpanies get the KEEPERS DETAILS from the DVLA and send the NTK to that entity

if that is a hire company , that is who gets it , yet it is unlikely that the hire company were driving (a company cannot drive - gettit)

keep em guessing , learn to speak in the third party where you are telling a story with no first hand knowledge

the english language is complicated for a reason

KeithP

Perhaps Ralph-y should now edit his post to remove the quote.