Premier Park Ltd - threat of Court action

MrTeeem

Hi All

I am getting a little confused by the various links in threads that link to some old advice and would be grateful if someone could please assist.

My wife has received an invoice from Premier Park (PP) back in November of 2017. We appealed and were refused, we appealed to POPAL using some of the arguments posted on-line in PEPIPOO and other such forums. This too was refused. We have received a couple of nagging letters, but ignored them. My wife has now received what purports to be a Letter Before Action, with threat that a small claim will be started by Friday (19th October)

The LBA was not compliant with the PAP and this was pointed out to PP, but they appear to be set on issuing a small claim. We have submitted a SAR and they have responded with a fairly hefty document.

My wife really does not want to go to court and is very stressed about the whole situation. She was not the driver on the night in question and so if she were to throw the driver under the bus, would this restart the process or has that ship sailed with changes to legislation etc?

I have read that the opinion is that PP do not issue many court proceedings, but since no DR letters have been sent and the SAR details explicit reference by PP not to send to DR, is this one of the 1% that they do take to court?

I'm more than happy to go through the court process, but my wife is not and as this is currently against her name, it is not fair for me to insist that she does. As there are only a few days left, could someone please offer some advice?

Thanks in advance.

MrT

The contents of this post are the express copyright © and intellectual property (IP) of MrTeeem. The contents may not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the express written permission of MrTeeem or MrTeeem’s agents.

KeithP

Has your wife seen this video?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

MrTeeem

We've seen a similar one. We took one of her sisters to the High Court on a Probate issue earlier this year and won as LIP. There are a number of reasons why this is causing her a lot of stress and I want to be able to remove that direct stress without giving money to a bunch of charlatans.

The contents of this post are the express copyright © and intellectual property (IP) of MrTeeem. The contents may not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the express written permission of MrTeeem or MrTeeem’s agents.

System

I want to be able to remove that direct stress without giving money to a bunch of charlatans.

The simple answer is to defend on papers only. There is no obligation to go to court and have an oral hearing. At least one circuit (South East) much prefers paper hearings as the legal issues are simple.

So you can opt at the correct time (7 days before a hearing) to go paper and not personal. In any case, Premier are not keen on court themselves and use the court as a form of pressure. Very, very few go to a hearing.

MrTeeem

Could I please ask for someone to review the most recent missive from PP and the draft response:

Please note that we do not usually respond in detail to letters that we receive that are predominantly responses found on various forums and that are not relevant to the dispute between ourselves. Accordingly, we will be responding below to relevant points as set out in the above referenced letter.

Please note that we are well aware of our responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol and our - Letter of Claim meets all required standards as stipulated in Paragraphs 6 a) and 6(c).

Please note that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) if the Registered Keeper of a Vehicle fails or refuses to provide the details of the Driver at the time of a contravention occurring the Registered Keeper becomes liable for any debt incurred by the Driver.

Whilst the Driver did pay for three hours parking, they remained on site for a total period of three hours and thirty-four minutes, failing to pay for your thirty-four minute overstay. We are required to allow a reasonable grace period for motorists to enter onto the private land that we manage in order for them to read the signage and decide if they wish to park, which you did. We are also required to allow a grace period of ten minutes following a paid parking session prior to any enforcement action (PCN being issued). Please note that thirty-four minutes exceeds both grace periods, accordingly the PCN was correctly issued.

We deny all liability for your alleged costs as stated or otherwise. Please note however that you are free to make any application to the Small Claims Court as you see fit.

Please note that your Subject Access Request will be conducted by our Data Protection Team and will be provided and dealt with separately to any litigation that arise from our dispute.

Please note that in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt matters, we write at this time to inform you that as you have not made any reasonable offer to settle this matter we intend in fourteen days, namely the 19 October 2018 to issue proceedings for the monies owed before the Small Claims Courts. We recommend that you seek independent legal advice on the contents of this letter.

We as a commercial gesture and to avoid further legal costs are willing to accept £150.00 in full and final settlement of the above referenced PCN if paid by 10:00am on 15 October 2018, following which this offer will no longer be open for acceptance.

Draft response:

Dear Sir
Ref: Claim for debt referring to PCN invoice XXXXXXX
Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxxxxxxx.

1.0 It is a grave concern that you state that you are ‘well aware of [your] responsibilities under the Pre-Action Protocol’ since you have chosen to disregard so many of them. I find it disconcerting that an organisation which must send out many thousands of Letter Before Claim letters each year can fail so abysmally to actually comply. A matter that I will certainly refer not only to the Court, but also to the BPA.

2.0 Please note that under the Pre-Action Protocol, you are obligated to ensure that all relevant documentation is provided to the other party, namely myself. You have failed to provide any such documentation and as such are in breach of your obligation. To be clear, I am entitled to be given a list of the essential documents that Premier Park Ltd will be relying on in its claim together with copies of said documents.

3.0 Please note that you have alleged that a breach of contract has occurred, but you have provided no evidence that you are a valid contracting entity, that any such contract existed, nor of how this contract was breached.

4.0 Please be aware that under the Pre-Action Protocol, you are obligated to provide detailed evidence as to how the debt you are claiming has been calculated – you have chosen not to do so and so are again in breach of your obligation. You make a spurious referral to the BPA code of conduct 23.1b, but misquote it. I emphasise again, you are required to provide details as to how the amount of the charge has been calculated, not refer to the ceilings that such sums may not exceed.

5.0 Please be aware that you are required to state the where and when any alleged breach of contract occurred – again you have failed in your obligation under the Pre-Action protocol to provide such detail.

6.0 Please be aware that under the section for ADR, you state that the time limit for POPLA referrals has expired. Since POPLA is a certified Alternative Dispute Resolution provider, your statement does not appear to me to be based on fact. I understand that the BPA code of practice explicitly encourages PPC’s such as Premier Park Limited, to engage with POPLA as an ADR provider. Please can you explain why you are refusing this? I reserve the right to bring your refusal to the attention of the Court.

7.0 Please note that while you indicate an invitation to submit a separate small claims application, you fail to acknowledge that if you do issue proceedings, then I have the opportunity to detail my Defence and Counter Claim on the acknowledgement of service (form N9B).

8.0 Please note that the Court has powers to apply sanctions for non-compliance to the Practice Direction.

9.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

10.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with your trade body code of conduct in that your response to my appeal fell 11 days outside the 14 calendar day time limit specified.

11.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with the requirements of your own trade body with regards to signage.

12.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with the requirements of your own trade body with regards to grace periods.

13.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with the requirements of your own trade body with regards to the use of ANPR

14.0 Please be aware that I will be seeking to have any claim you issue dismissed as you have not complied with your obligations under Pre-Action Protocol.

15.0 I give you notice that I will vigorously defend any claim you chose to make. The above is not an exhaustive list of the grounds for any defence since you have thus far failed to provide any evidence.

16.0 I give you notice that I am writing to my MP, Geoffrey Cox, the current Attorney General; Kevin Foster, the MP for the constituency of the car park, and the MP for Exeter, Ben Bradshaw to request that they petition the Secretary of State for Transport to have your access to DVLA data revoked as your company are clearly not fit and proper.

The contents of this post are the express copyright © and intellectual property (IP) of MrTeeem. The contents may not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the express written permission of MrTeeem or MrTeeem’s agents.

System

The key sentence is "Whilst the Driver did pay for three hours parking, they remained on site for a total period of three hours and thirty-four minutes, failing to pay for your thirty-four minute overstay."

Overstaying is slap bang in the middle of the Beavis rationale. Doing so in a P&D is even worse as some judges see it a petty theft. Is there a good reason for 34 mins?

MrTeeem

The car park was extremely busy as there was a sold out performance by Russell Brand at the Princess Theatre. There was a massive queue at the machine to pay, which is why RingGo was ultimately used and complete chaos at the end with everyone trying to leave at the same time. The car park was in a state of gridlock and it took over 25 mins to actually get out.

I can get a witness statement to that effect from two others who attended the performance and witnessed the queues.

The contents of this post are the express copyright © and intellectual property (IP) of MrTeeem. The contents may not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the express written permission of MrTeeem or MrTeeem’s agents.

nosferatu1001

In which case STATE THAT NOW
Waiting to leave is not parking - parking eye at Fistral beach. Easy case to find.

MrTeeem

It was stated in the original appeal to PP and the subsequent appeal to POPLA - both were refused

System

It was stated in the original appeal to PP and the subsequent appeal to POPLA - both were refused

A judge may take a different view. POPLA is limited but a judge could find for the defendant on the basis of impossibility / frustration of contract but it will likely need a personal hearing.

MrTeeem

Which is what I am seeking to avoid putting my wife through, so back to the original question, if she, as registered keeper, reveals the name of the driver, does that restart the PCN process?

The contents of this post are the express copyright © and intellectual property (IP) of MrTeeem. The contents may not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the express written permission of MrTeeem or MrTeeem’s agents.