Parking Charge from Premier Parking Logistics

Raymaan

Hi,

I have received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) LETTER addressed to the keeper, issued on 20th March 2018 but the incident date is 12th March 2018. The incident is "Unauthorised Parking". There was no "sticker" so it came as a wonderful Friday surprise in the post.

The letter says: "We have issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to your vehicle because it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at <Address Here> that we are authorised to manage on the <Date of Incident>. The terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if they breach these terms and conditions." ...etc.

The letter contains the logo for IPC, and I can see on the IPC website they are listed as "Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics". They have shown only one picture of the incident, and this picture does not show any signage at all.

Image: http:// i67.tinypic .com/10pynfa.png

From what I understand of the newbies guide, I am supposed to 1. send my appeal by post (since there isn't an email or online option) to Premier Parking, and once they respond with their refusal of the appeal, I then 2. appeal to IAS, which I assume is then likely to be a refusal too and then 3. wait for the small claims to happen and fight it there, otherwise just ignore all debt collection letters.

Is that about right?

Thanks for your help!

Umkomaas

From what I understand of the newbies guide, I am supposed to 1. send my appeal by post (since there isn't an email or online option) to Premier Parking, and once they respond with their refusal of the appeal, I then 2. appeal to IAS, which I assume is then likely to be a refusal too and then 3. wait for the small claims to happen and fight it there, otherwise just ignore all debt collection letters.

1. Yes - using the template in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1
2. No - we do not recommend appealing to the IAS - read why in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3
3. You're correct about ignoring debt collectors, but why do you appear to think a small claim is inevitable? Look at the record.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Parking_Logistics

Here's a 4th point for you - I'm not sure Walton will be too keen on getting entangled in further court processes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387286/Clamping-boss-Walton-Wilkins-claims-10m-impounding-cars.html

Come back on this thread if he chances issuing court proceedings.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

claxtome

The image link of the parking offence is->
http://i67.tinypic.com/10pynfa.png

It is not a very clear photo.
Is that a parking sign on the wall behind the car?
Having you been back to the area and taken photos of signs?

Raymaan

claxtome wrote: »

Is that a parking sign on the wall behind the car?
Having you been back to the area and taken photos of signs?

Google Maps is very handy here I think ... hopefully in my favor?? .... Here's some closer pictures: http:// prntscr .com/ivf18j and the sign http:// prntscr .com/ivf7id - unless you were walking towards the shop, or were parked facing it (which the car wasn't), then you wouldn't have had even the slightest chance to see the signs. None of the nearby shops have any parking restrictions/charges, they're the only ones.

@Umkomaas @The Deep Thank you guys for the assurance, I was beginning to feel like it wasn't worth fighting, but clearly now it is

Le_Kirk

Here are your pictures

http://prntscr.com/ivf18j
http://prntscr.com/ivf7id

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Here are your pictures

http://prntscr.com/ivf18j
http://prntscr.com/ivf7id

Who is 'The Parking Agency' shown on the signs? The website shown on the sign doesn't work. There's no ATA logo shown on the sign.

Doing a Google search on the address shown on the sign (Kings Court, 17 School Road, Birmingham) brings up a homecare agency.

https://www.homecare.co.uk/homecare/agency.cfm/id/65432221766

Something not right here!

Raymaan

Umkomaas wrote: »

Who is 'The Parking Agency' shown on the signs? The website shown on the sign doesn't work. There's no ATA logo shown on the sign.

Doing a Google search on the address shown on the sign (Kings Court, 17 School Road, Birmingham) brings up a homecare agency.

< link removed so i can quote >

Something not right here!

Nice catch. I will have to drive there and have a look to make sure that the signage is the same, since the Google maps version is dated for August 2017.

KeithP

There is nothing prominent about the 'contractual sign' you have shown us. Where is the charge mentioned?

That sign is not capable of being a basis for forming a contract - especially not a contract with Premier Parking Logistics.

The address in School Road does appear to be a Business Centre providing 'virtual office services'. The sort of place a PPC is quite likely to use.

KeithP

Gan on Pepipoo had this to say about them:

They're a non-trading company that doesn't disclose their true identity on any documents and chases somebody else's debts without a licence.

If they haven't already informed Companies House, they would be committing an offence if they bought a box of paper clips.

Although that was back in May 2012.

Raymaan

To update everyone, I appealed it via the IAS and won the appeal on 09/05/2018.


Adjudicator's Decision

While noting the Operator's prima facie case, the photographic evidence provided by them is of extremely poor quality and single image is entirely insufficient to prove firstly that the vehicle was parked and secondly that the driver was made adequately aware of the terms and conditions applicable at the site. Accordingly I must allow this appeal.