Premier Park PCN - Letter of claim received

K.I.T.T.

Apologies for the previous post, done in haste. POPLA's response (with some, but perhaps not all, irrelevant bits taken out). Bold added for emphasis. Blue are my comments. Grey italics potentially irrelevant, but left in.

Hopefully this is more acceptable?

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • No evidence that the vehicle war parked in the location. • Entrance sign in contravention of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • No evidence of landowner authority. • Failure to comply with the data protection under ICO code of practice. To support the appeal, the appellant has provided POPLA with a copy of the signage.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site.

The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 07:59am and exited the site at 18:43pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of six hours and 44 minutes. I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question. What?! I acknowledge the evidence provided by the appellant. It doesn’t appear they have – how would the driver have bought the ticket if they weren’t in the station car park?

I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. An entrance sign is clearly in contravention of the BPA COP, as per original appeal

The operator has provided evidence of the contract which provides written confirmation that it has the authority to carry out all aspects of the car park management for the site. The agreement the operator has provided does not appear to be with the landowner – the other party in the agreement does not match the records held by the land registry. Highlighted in my comments (see below)

The appellant has raised data protection under the ICO code of practice, POPLA only look at the BPA Code of Practice when assessing appeals. This would need to be addressed with the ICO directly.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. The appellant has always maintained the driver wasn’t parked on site.

On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site.

I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Below is my original appeal:
hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rnev7ma8L9oWbnCi7apaFKE9_AHYBp_A/view?usp=sharing

The operator provided their evidence - hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74904568&postcount=13

The above is another wall of text, however, I rebutted these concisely in the 2000 character limit:

Responding to point 1 of my appeal, Premier Park (PP) state "there are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park". As there are no payment machines in the location PP managed, the driver had to have been in the station car park to purchase the ticket.
The points raised by PP regarding their ANPR suggests this new system was not working correctly on 10/7/18; it only operated from the day before (9/7/18). I ask PP to evidence their system was audited by the BPA.



As per point 2 in my appeal, PP's entrance sign at car park 2 does not state the car park is managed, contravening BPA CoP 18.2. This is evidenced by figure 5 in my appeal as well as by PP's own submission.
This appeal involves the Peel Centre car park 2, NOT car park 1, a separate location. The PDF file PP have submitted includes signs of both locations, which is misleading.


In response to point 3 of my appeal, PP have supplied an agreement between themselves and [Redacted] and state "we have supplied the landowner name and address". [Redacted] is NOT the landowner, nor is the landowner's address [Redacted].
The landowner's address is [Redacted]. I would be happy to supply a copy of information obtained from the Land Registry to POPLA, which will confirm any agreement PP have with [Redacted] is of no relevance to this case.
Not only is PP's agreement irrelevant, it came into place on 9/7/18 a day before the alleged contravention. As per point 3 in my appeal, PP's operation on this site is also in contravention with BPA CoP 18.10



As per point 4 in my appeal PP is in contravention of BPA CoP 21.4. Not only has PP not undertaken a privacy impact assessment, they are still in possession of information relating to my vehicle from 4/8/18 where no contravention occurred. This does not "keep to the Data Protection Act" (BPA CoP 21.4). I shall raise this separately to the Information Commissioner's Office and commence legal proceedings against PP.

The main point of my original appeal was that the vehicle was not parked in the location PP state, evidenced by the station ticket. POPLA appear to have completely glossed over this.

K.I.T.T.

Sorry to bump this, but I'm a little lost as what to do next.

I understand the next phase will be debt collectors and possibly a LBC / court.

However, in the meantime, is it worth taking this up with / complaining to POPLA? I understand that their decisions are 'final'. However in this case, unfortunately, it does not appear that they have fully considered my appeal points.

In fact, they seem to be of the opinion I stated I was parked in the PP managed car park, when I have always maintained otherwise:

"I note the appellant’s comments and the evidence provided to support their reason for parking at the site in question."

Bar the ticket for the station car park (which is still in my possession), it's very difficult for someone to prove where the vehicle was in fact parked. The signage (station parking signs hand in hand with PP T&C signs) and the lack of physical boundaries make this a very confusing scenario for the motorist.

Should I preemptively start working on a defence for LBC stage?

ADESH

I have the exact same issue. Paid and parked at the station but received a fine saying I parked at the peel center based on camera evidence. Popla also just judged in PP’s favour. What did you do to resolve?

Coupon-mad

Both of you should make an online complaint to the Information Commissioner about PP gathering ANPR data of cars that go past the cameras, and park ELSEWHERE, legitimately paying and displaying, and parking, in the train station car park.

Why not do a joint complaint with all your evidence, to show you were both parked in the train station car park and that PP are using ANPR wholly unfairly and excessively, and gathering data they are not entitled to, as their car park is not fenced apart from the PDT machine site that the station operate.

This has to be illegal data collection. They can't get away with this and they even admit it to POPLA:

At this location, motorists are required to drive through the Peel Centre car park to access the separate train station car park area. There are payment machines and RingGo available in the train station car park.

Your POPLA appeal was good, K.I.T.T. and it seems the Assessor never read it. Did you complain to John Gallagher?

Why not pm each other and make a joint ICO complaint, to give it more weight and show it's not a one-off. Their excuse is there were '2 reads not 4 reads' but that can be simply that your numberplate wasn't picked up by the second cameras, perhaps due to the angle of the car, or the bad angle of the Cameras themselves, or a queue nose-to-tail within the site:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

With two cars following each other, nose-to tail within the car park, this could even be tested if you are brave, and record the route on your phone or dashcam, to prove they are wrong when a new PCN is issued. Yes I mean go and get one deliberately...but proving it is a scam.

That would completely expose the scam. I would do that, if I were you, make sure one VRN can't be seen past the inner cameras purely sue to being followed.

YOU MUST complain to the ICO!

Local paper would be good to get on board as well, to flush out if any other locals have been caught.

K.I.T.T.

First of all, thank you to savvy for changing the title of my thread.


[FONT=&quot]ADESH and Coupon-mad, apologies for not noticing your replies in February. Things had been quiet, and I hadn't checked back.


[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The POPLA appeal was rejected in November. I started receiving debt collectors letters (x 2) in the last 8 weeks, which were ignored. I have now received a letter of claim from BW Legal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Due to being abroad when the letter was delivered, there are only 10 days left to respond.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] This is the 'standard' BW Legal LBC, which states under the heading "Particulars of Debt:" [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On x, you were granted a limited contractual licence to enter the land known as ("Site"), which is managed and operated by Our Client. In return, you were to abide by certain terms and conditions ("Terms and Conditions") which were prominently displayed on the signage erected in situ by Our Client. On x, you breached the Terms and Conditions by Parked without payment of the parking charge ("Breach")...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I was going to use an amended version Daniel San's response, but as the arguement is that the vehicle was never parked in the car park managed by PP, and the only 'proof' they have is the ANPR entry and exit times, what is the best way to initially respond to this?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I still have in my possession the ticket for the railway car park purchased by the driver when they parked on the day.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]On a side note, could I run something by you? The relevant question for me is whether the driver actually entered into a contract with the PPC-regardless of where he or she had parked. Given that the driver purchased a ticket for the station car park within minutes of arrival, it is almost certain that the driver intended to enter into contractual relations for a period of parking--but with the railway operator, not with the PPC. As such an intention is an essential element of a contract under English law (along with offer, acceptance and consideration), its absence means there was no contract between the driver and the PPC. (It also means the driver was likely trespassing on private land, but unless the PPC is the land occupier it cannot claim for that, and the damages would have to be proven in court and would likely be minimal).[/FONT][/FONT]

K.I.T.T.

Okay, I need to get a response out this week. I propose the following:



1. I shall send a SAR request to Premier Park via email, imminently
2. I shall respond to the LBC using a modified version of Coupon Mad's response as below.



Please could you critique?



Dear Sirs,

Your client: Premier Park / account number xxx/ VRN xxx

I see you are continuing to bombard me with letters whilst I am awaiting a SAR from your client. Since you asked, your position is not satisfactory, and I do not have 'an account' with your or your client.

Any debt is denied but I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source. As such, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims, you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

At least that will give me the chance to also receive and review the data that your client deigns to produce at long last, none of which accompanied your template 'Letter of Claim'.

I realise that personal data does not include a copy of the signage that your client purports bound me to a contract. I now request this yet again, and require that you supply all signage photographs that your client intends to rely upon, after the 30 day period and certainly before commencing court action.

Estimated Claim

I deny the alleged contravention ever took place and dispute the full amount of any alleged debt owed. The driver of the vehicle had parked in the station car park, which your client has no interest in.

Entry and exit times are not proof that the vehicle was parked on your client's site between these times, merely that the vehicle passed through - to and from the station car park, where the vehicle was parked, as evidenced by the parking ticket, a copy of which is enclosed. I have informed your client of this on multiple occasions in the past. You and your client's continuous pursuit of this baseless claim is harassment.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

The estimated claim is alarmist, intimidating and contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge, which was not £160 and is in any event, denied in its entirety.

An additional charge - variously described as 'initial legal costs' or 'debt collection' depending on how the mood seems to take BW Legal in your template letters - is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where only £85 was recovered and it was held that such a case cannot be pleaded in damages.

In addition, whilst the CPRs allow interest to be claimed, it is unreasonable to attempt to claim interest where the time that has passed is wholly due to your client's own inaction and choice in failing to pursue this meritless case in a timely fashion, until suddenly deciding to scrape the barrel by farming hundreds of old cases to yourselves, a self-proclaimed 'one-stop-shop for debt collection'.

Further, you have included 'legal costs' twice, despite no solicitor having been involved. Any purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims.

It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover and the court will be invited to strike out the claim.

Further, CPR 44.3 (2) states:
''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.


Enclosures
I will not be filling in financial forms. Your parking firm client is not entitled to such data and there is no debt to discuss, as there never is with the industry you choose to prop up. Both you and your client were named and shamed in Parliament in 2018 during the readings of the long-awaited Parking Bill (now Act) and you are the last people any honest victim of an unfair 'parking charge' scam would want to furnish with my private financial information.


What you need to do now
(a) Advise your client to cancel this meritless proposed claim to avoid wasted legal action.

(b) Given that I have duly informed you that the debt is disputed and I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

(c) Once the 30 day period has passed you must comply with the PAP for debt claims and supply me with the requested information that does not fall under the SAR, namely all photographs taken on the material date, showing the signage terms. This must be supplied in advance of any claim in order to comply with the PAP especially given the fact that I have fully complied and provided evidence that the vehicle was not parked in the car park managed by your client.


How to get in touch
You may contact me by post or email after the 30 days has elapsed but you/your clients are specifically not allowed to attempt to use my phone number to harass me by text or phone.

I trust this is satisfactory and clarifies my position. Should you/your client be dissatisfied with your own response and data processing you may report yourselves by making a complaint to the SRA and Information Commissioner's Office.

yours faithfully,

Umkomaas

^^ I like that. ^^

K.I.T.T.

Hello folks, a quick update.

As per previous post, LoC was received earlier in the year, and robustly responded to.

SAR material received, and a couple of additional letters asking for income / expenditure forms - they want to know about 'my circumstances' and what sort of arrangement I could propose. Duly ignored both of these.

Had gone quiet, until another LoC was received. Practically identical to the previous one, bar a slightly higher amount for 'estimated interest'.

Working on the assumption that this latest LoC needs to be responded to, what approach is suggested?

Half tempted to just respond with something along the lines of:



"Please refer to my response (dated ... ) to your earlier letter (dated ... ).

My position remains the same. As stated then, any debt is denied. No further correspondence has been received to substantiate your bogus allegations.

Either commence court proceedings, or stop contacting me and wasting my time.

Merry Christmas, you filthy animals"

Coupon-mad

How about reading the threads by CEC16 and the Warwick ones by Jon someone and CrystalTips something(!) and then replying to BW Legal asking them to explain the added £60 'costs'.

Don't tip them off what you have read. Just ask them to break down the £160.

Riisargh5

Wow, if its this much hassle to go through when you were absolutely in no way wrong then I may as well just pay the £60 that I got from the same car park? I don't have all this knowledge, time or mental stability for that matter 😭