Premier Park Ltd court case won

PPwinner

I recently won my defence to a claim Premier Park Ltd started against me for an overstay in a private car park - many thanks to all of the advice and case examples found here (and having a lawyer in the family)! The key thing I picked up here was not to identify the driver, and to therefore let liability fall to the Keeper of the vehicle! Now I want to share this win far and wide to ensure others don't fall into the trap of paying up unnecessarily! I'm guessing Premier Park Ltd won't bother to amend their NtK...

The winning argument was that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with section 9(2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. The usual 'within 29 days' line. My NtK was "issued" (sent by post) on a Friday and so, in accordance with the Act, deemed "given" on the following Tuesday (i.e. 2 working days later). Premier Park Ltd failed to read / understand / believe me each time (at least 3 times!) I wrote to them explaining that their notice failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012 in warning me that the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper would arise after 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given - i.e. in my case, after 32 days. And so I happily let them take me to court over it :beer: Of course I'd rather not have wasted my time prepping for it all, but the satisfaction of winning made it worthwhile.

24 months later, and the hearing was over in ~10 minutes. The Judge did (as I suspected) ask what action the Claimant (Premier Park Ltd) had taken in those 3 days between their incorrect 29 day period and the lawful 32 days - their answer of course, was nothing. However, the Judge told the Claimant that he didn't care for what they might or might not have done and that the fact was their NtK did not comply with law and there were no two ways about it. Unfortunately I wasn't awarded any costs as the Judge "had no sympathy for small claims" and when I asked if instead he'd consider forfeiting their right to remain a member of the Approved Operator Scheme / BPA, he said he didn't want to get involved, but I fully intend to write to them too and perhaps the local papers :T

Never mind the many other arguments in my defence which I didn't get round to addressing!!:

-No proof of authority to operate on the land (dodgy extension to the expired landowner agreement signed by an "Administrator" on behalf of a Limited company)
-One tiny sign that stated that stated that payment had to cover the entire period between entry and exit to the site (which they admitted in their evidence at the POPLA appeal stage was placed there by the landowner, not themselves), with no proof that it was in place on the day in question (the only photo of signage without a date stamp, and most of the photos datestamped several months after the day in question)..... therefore how can it possibly be a term of the contract?! And what kind of pay and display car park operates in this way anyway!? How can you be expected to remember what time you entered when you aren't given any warning that you need to check as you drive in?
-IF they could prove it was a term of the contract entered into that day, then in line with the principle in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw case law, it should have been brought unavoidably to the driver's attention

Throughout the paperwork the position and company of the Claimant was also very interchangeable: [Removed by Forum Team] - mostly a Senior Litigation Caseworker, once the Deputy Head of Legal, sometimes worked for Premier Park Ltd, sometimes for P P Legal etc etc... I didn't receive any debt collection threats - just heard nothing between their last offer for me to pay the charge after the failed POPLA appeal and their Letter Before Claim (~2-3 months)!

Hope this helps!! :-)

DoaM

Well done.

Perhaps write to POPLA to tell them that their adjudicator failed to understand the law, but a judge wasn't so incompetent? (Presumably you made the same non-POFA NTK point in your POPLA appeal?)

Umkomaas

Great win. As they knew (or should have known) that their NtK was not PoFA compliant - and the court has ripped them a new one on this - complain to the DVLA that they were falsely claiming that the keeper was liable. Your relative might want to add some legal wording to it?

Ask that the DVLA investigate this thoroughly, including how many other motorists have been deceived by the false claims and have paid up under duress.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk

PPwinner

Unfortunately I wasn't wise to the non compliant NtK element as I started the POPLA appeal, and appealed on grounds that the PCN was disproportionate to the unpaid parking charge (but did ask for evidence of the contract that had been entered into, all photos etc)... it was only when the evidence pack came through with the expired landowner agreement and a load of template responses relating to points I hadn't raised that I looked into the threads on this forum in more detail and found my winning argument! I detailed it in the comments section but of course it was ignored by the POPLA assessor's as it formed 'new grounds for appeal' which they cannot take into account due to their ridiculous process.
I duly raised it to Premier Park's attention in writing in my response to the LBC, Defence, an e-mail, my WS... they still didn't give up (more fool them and their incurred costs). The Judge wasn't interested to know if the overstay was genuine or not.

Coupon-mad

Great news, and another one bites the dust!

Which court and Judge?

Who turned up for PP Legal or PP?

They boasted here last year they would win cases due to their all singing all dancing legal team, and (whilst they are obviously beating Joe Public, as that's what these aggressive firms do) I don't think we've seen them win one here yet!

PPwinner

Will do - thanks for the contact details Umkomaas, meant to ask! Sadly I imagine one case won't tip it, but I hope that mine will be added to a growing pile!

Umkomaas

PPwinner wrote: »

Will do - thanks for the contact details Umkomaas, meant to ask! Sadly I imagine one case won't tip it, but I hope that mine will be added to a growing pile!

If the DVLA try to dodge the issue, the next step will be a Freedom of Information Request, where they will find it much more difficult to provide a mealy-mouthed response.

Hit them hard.

PPwinner

His bundle was so poor that the Judge used mine to rely upon top tip - use an index for a 77 page court document!

Umkomaas

top tip - use an index for a 77 page court document!

Was that yours, or PP’s?

PPwinner

Sarcasm regarding PP's.. mine was fully indexed and sectioned

Coupon-mad

PPwinner wrote: »

His bundle was so poor that the Judge used mine to rely upon top tip - use an index for a 77 page court document!

Hahaha, @Premier Park's finest legal eagles, are you reading and learning?!

:rotfl: