Premier Park - Parking and leaving site

fivegoldstars

Hi all. I've received a PCN as keeper of a vehicle due to 'parking and leaving site'. I assume the allegation is that the driver parked and left the site, but the PCN says it has been issued to my vehicle, rather than the driver or keeper..
No notice was left on the vehicle, but this is not ANPR issued - photos have been taken of the car correctly parked in a bay. There is no suggestion of any overstay.
What would be the correct way to appeal this?

Coupon-mad

Same as in the NEWBIES thread (use the one size fits all appeal template). We see lots of postal PCNs by hand held camera.

Premier Park cases are sometimes lost at POPLA, but no-one here PAYS them! Nor on pepipoo forum, where (posting as SchoolRunMum) I showed a poster a whole list of lost PP cases at POPLA where the OP had not paid, and nothing happened:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117391

Not wishing to worry you at all, just to tell you how to appeal (see NEWBIES FAQs) and what to expect later. Nothing much...

Umkomaas

What would be the correct way to appeal this?

Initial appeal as per the template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1.

Please confirm the exact name of the parking company as there are three who have very similar names. Advice could be different on the next stage, dependent on which PPC it is.

You need to understand ‘leaving the site’ issues, probably the most difficult case for a PPC to prove (as in, for example, how does a photo of a car prove that an occupant left the site?).

Here is a transcript from the most famous ‘leaving the site’ court case where the PPC didn’t come out of it too well, and their solicitor came close to personal/occupational catastrophe. It was almost 6 years ago - no PPC has attempted such a court case ever since! Go figure!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

fivegoldstars

The company is Premier Park Ltd.

fivegoldstars

I've had a look at the stock letter in the newbie thread, and it's very short compared to ones I've sent (and won) in the past. Previously, I've had charges waived by including more of the details from the Popla appeal letter. I've also usually contested the reason - I was expecting to put in a bit requesting proof that the driver left etc.
Is the main idea of the stock letter to get a Popla code now, rather than have the PPC cancel at source? Obviously I shall take the forum advice if this is now the correct approach.

Coupon-mad

See my reply, you might lose at POPLA. So what? Follow the template process.

Premier Park WILL NOT cancel early. No chance of that, so a longer appeal isn't needed.

fivegoldstars

When a PPC responds to an appeal, is it common for them to simply invite the keeper to name the driver, with a deadline date (invoking keeper liability after that date)? Would an appeal decision/POPLA code then follow at a later date?
Furthermore, on the data protection issue in the stock letter, where does a PPC stand if they have not issued a windscreen ticket, but gone straight to NTK for a non ANPR ticket? If they say that they are fully compliant on the grounds of a ticket needed issuing, wouldn't the answer be that they could have issued a windscreen ticket without the need to contact DVLA?

Redx

yes , it is extremely common for them to ask for the drivers details

this can be ignored and wait for a popla code to follow

if they issued an ANPR ticket then they need to deliver it within 14 days to adhere to popla

for a windscreen ticket they are barred from getting keeper details until day 29 and before day 56 for popla to be invoked so they would have no idea who the keeper is for the first 28 days

clearly a massive difference in the timeline

so if they lied and said they issued a windscreen ticket, they would have breached their dvla KADOE contract if they applied for keeper details too early

its one or the other, the timeline is the main issue and also the main proof

Coupon-mad

When a PPC responds to an appeal, is it common for them to simply invite the keeper to name the driver, with a deadline date (invoking keeper liability after that date)?

Yes, Premier Park and UKPC always try that. And they can ask...and you can ignore.

Would an appeal decision/POPLA code then follow at a later date?

Yes, this is already covered in all other Premier Park threads, all the time. It follows anyway.

on the data protection issue in the stock letter, where does a PPC stand if they have not issued a windscreen ticket, but gone straight to NTK for a non ANPR ticket? If they say that they are fully compliant on the grounds of a ticket needed issuing, wouldn't the answer be that they could have issued a windscreen ticket without the need to contact DVLA?

The DVLA and BPA let them do this, it's not an issue for anyone; no-one cares.

fivegoldstars

Redx wrote: »

yes , it is extremely common for them to ask for the drivers details

this can be ignored and wait for a popla code to follow

if they issued an ANPR ticket then they need to deliver it within 14 days to adhere to popla

for a windscreen ticket they are barred from getting keeper details until day 29 and before day 56 for popla to be invoked so they would have no idea who the keeper is for the first 28 days

clearly a massive difference in the timeline

so if they lied and said they issued a windscreen ticket, they would have breached their dvla KADOE contract if they applied for keeper details too early

its one or the other, the timeline is the main issue and also the main proof

That's what I was wondering about - just for my own curiosity really, not any deviation from the appeals process.
If an operative takes photos of the car and makes an allegation of a contravention, rather than ANPR, shouldn't they issue a windscreen ticket? By not doing so, it appears they can circumvent the 29 day wait period and go straight to the DVLA for keeper details. That application could be seen as unnecessary as, had the driver paid after a windscreen ticket, keeper details would not have been required.

Redx

its an unregulated industry, so they can choose either option

if you look at recent VCS cases, they issue a myparkingcharge notice on the vehicle, which they claim is NOT a notice to driver, then they issue an NTK , possibly within 14 days and usually within 28 days , to the keeper

the DVLA are going along with this

what you really have to ask yourself is this

are they breaking the law ? yes/no (if yes , which one and why)

are they breaking their KADOE contract ? yes/no

are they breaking their CoP ? yes/no

as its an unregulated industry with voluntary codes of practice , with no regulatory body overseeing them (which its been for many , many years) then even if you think they have done something wrong , taking them to court and proving it could be a costly exercise

so whilst nobody or few people take them to court, they do almost as they like, which is why its a sc@mmers paradise and a cowboy industry

but if you had read the parking prankster blogs over the last 5 years or so (like I have) then you would be up to speed on all this