Premier Park Ltd - threat of Court action

System

does that restart the PCN process?

No but it might stop a claim. But in their perverse way they can either continue against the Keeper for hassle value or issue a new LBCC against the driver. If they feel they can apply the Protection of Freedoms Act to the Keeper then it will continue.

It may be better if the Keeper can reveal (by means of evidence) that they were not driving that day.

MrTeeem

If they feel they can apply the Protection of Freedoms Act to the Keeper

The PoFA defence has failed at POPLA already and as they have not referred to DR, one presumes that they feel confident enough to win a small claim.

issue a new LBCC against the driver.

Would this not be seen as not following the due process?

It would be simple enough to get witness statements to confirm that my wife was not the driver on the date and time in question, but they are holding the Registered Keeper as liable.

As far as I am aware, I believe that the driver has a disability, so giving up the driver could open up that avenue of defence.

Thanks for your help with this, by the way - it's much appreciated.

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.

WelshGoblin

Having recently been in court against Premier Park with some advice from this forum, I am not convinced in the PAP argument, I tried to raise it but was told by the judge that they had complied and that they further provided all information I needed to understand and answer the claim.

Their representative, who said he was part of their in house legal team (sorry can't remember name), told the court that when they get a forum generated response they attempt to answer queries and requests for information relevant to the issue in dispute but don't spend time answering other points other than to point out that they are not relevant. The Judge had started quite hostile to the PP representative but seemed to become more sympathetic to this position after he looked at the information in their evidence and statement.

From your above points the one which would seem to have real potential would be the queuing to leave. I would suggest asking for data/information on the number of people paying around the same time you did and any other similar overstays after paying as this could show you and they tried but were unable to leave.

Hope this helps

MrTeeem

I would suggest asking for data/information on the number of people paying around the same time you did and any other similar overstays after paying as this could show you and they tried but were unable to leave

Thanks WG, I am forming an opinion that to save my wife the hassle of this, she should reveal the driver who can then fight the case in court themselves. I do not believe that PP would voluntarily divulge information regarding queuing traffic congestion that could harm their case unless it was demanded of them through discovery, which in itself necessitates court action to be initiated.

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

There also isnt traditional discovery in small claims track, to my understanding.

MrTeeem

By way of an update - received this from PP:

Thank you for your letter dated blah
Whilst I acknowledge that you have now named the driver of the vehicle on the date in question as blah in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, you have failed to do so within 28 days of receipt of the Notice to Keeper and we are therefore entitled, under that legislation, to hold you liable for the same. It is, therefore, our intention to continue with this matter and to issue proceedings.

Please note that my colleague blah, who is dealing with this matter, is currently on annual leave and that as such I would anticipate proceedings being issues in the week commencing 5th November,2018.

In the meantime, with a view to avoiding unnecessary court proceedings, I can confirm that we would accept the sum of £100, in full and final settlement of this matter provided that it is paid no later than 4pm on Friday 2nd November, 2018. We look forward to hearing from you.

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.

MrTeeem

This is my draft response:

Thank you for your letter dated 25th October.

While I am disappointed that you are choosing to continue with your groundless action against me, I give you notice that I will robustly and vigorously defend any court proceedings that you issue.

Contrary to the assertion in your letter from your colleague dated 5th October, I do not need to submit a separate application to the Small Claims Court to register my counter claim for costs and damages as I will be able to do so on the Acknowledgement of Service when I file my defence. I reserve the right to bring to the attention of the court your deliberate attempt to misdirect me.

That same letter also admits that you are required to allow a grace period both prior to and after parking, but you still fail to appreciate that the wording of your own trade body is that these periods are minimums, not maximums. In situations where severe congestion or a disability apply, any reasonable person would expect additional time to be allowed. In this particular instance, there was severe congestion, for which I have supporting witness statements, coupled with the fact that the driver has a disability.

If you do choose to issue proceedings, I will be notifying the BPA in respect of your failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

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.

Coupon-mad

I wrote one too, but yours has valid points about the EA, so maybe amalgamate these?

Dear PP,

Good luck with that twisting of the POFA. With a view to avoiding unnecessary court proceedings, I can confirm that I would accept you ceasing to process my data and erasing it, and sending a PCN to the named driver instead.

If you do not, and continue to process my data despite the law prohibiting you from having any right to demand money from me now, I will complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.

You and I both know that I named the driver and gave their address for service well before legal action commenced and that the '28 days to name the driver' you refer to is a figment of the vivid imagination of someone at the BPA, who is very clearly wrong.

Schedule 4 makes it clear that any right to keeper liability has ceased to apply:

''Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4
5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—
(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but
(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
(2)Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.''

You are not ''unable'' to take those steps, so off you toddle and take them.

yours,


Mr Teeem

MrTeeem

Awesome. Thank you.

Standupforyourself

wow, sorry to jump in but this is great stuff. The case sounds not dissimilar to my own where the registered keeper is being chased on a PCN based on a 30 min overstay over a period of 3 and a half hours. Two pay and display tickets were bought and paid for but there was foul weather that day, clothes had to be changed in car and then there was a lack of change for the machine. All adds up to delays but there is never an intention to frustrate any implied parking terms.

Anyway, good luck with the case. I'll let the experts comment on my thread separately!