Stupidly ignored parking charge notice- hearing today update

Cbay27

Is this any better?


Regarding the Parking Charge Notice referenced above I would like to put forward a without prejudice offer. I was under the impression that I had paid for parking that day as I had called Ring Go to pay for the parking which originally led me not to respond to your letters. It has just come to my attention that in fact the payment did not go through as I orginally intended. My mobile phone bill clearly shows I have called the Ring Go number on the date of parking, however no money has been taken from my bank account. I did not purposefully park intending not to pay.


I feel the outstanding amount of £170 is a disproportionate charge bearing in mind the parking duration was 3 hours 40 minutes. The amount you are now charging is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner. I would like pay £60 as per the original notice as this covers the unpaid parking and any administration costs on your part.

Coupon-mad

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS

Regarding the Parking Charge Notice referenced above I would like to put forward a without prejudice offer. I was under the impression that I had paid for parking that day as I had called Ring Go to pay for the parking which originally led me not to respond to your letters. It has just come to my attention that in fact the payment did not go through as I originally intended.

My mobile phone bill clearly shows I have called the Ring Go number on the date of parking, however no money has been taken from my bank account. I was not in fact the driver, but a passenger that day. The driver did not purposefully park intending not to pay and it will be my position that your system failed.

I feel the outstanding amount of £170 is a disproportionate charge bearing in mind the parking duration was 3 hours 40 minutes. The amount you are now charging is in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, para 6, 10 and 14, as was tested at Southampton Court on 11.11.19, where BW Legal/Britannia lost an application to be allowed to enter claims for £160 for £100 PCNs.[STRIKE]not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner. [/STRIKE]

In good faith and to resolve the dispute, [STRIKE]would like pay[/STRIKE] I hereby make a 'full and final settlement' offer of £60 as per the original notice as this covers the unpaid parking and any administration costs on your part.

Send that, but NOT the bit about no loss'!

Expect them to demand £100 at least. I would NOT pay it but can see your defence is shakier than some and would have to rely on them showing their system was working that day.

Redx

As above , excellent letter by CM

Cbay27

Thank you so so much

Cbay27

So I sent a letter to both pp legal and premier park and an email to pp legal who have responded with this ...

Thank you for your email of 19 November 2019 regarding the above referenced Parking Charge Notice (PCN), in which you provide an admission that you failed to pay for the duration of your parking session as required under the terms of parking.

Please note that your offer of £60.00 in full and final settlement of the above referenced Account is not accepted.

Please note that all allegations of a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as stated or otherwise are denied and you will be put to strict proof in relation of the same.

Please note that the outstanding balance remains £170.00. This outstanding balance is made up of £100.00 being the original unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) together with £70.00 which has been accrued in accordance with Clause 23.1(b) of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme (of which Premier Park Ltd is a member) Code of Practice. Clause 2.1(b) sets out ‘where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.’

Please note as this matter is before Court Proceedings we will not be commenting on your uncorroborated and uncited purported precedent concerning BW Legal and Britannia.

We again recommend that you seek independent legal advice on the contents of this correspondence, together with our previous correspondence in this matter.

We further recommend that you seek comprehensive independent legal advice on any prospective litigation that may occur due to the PCN remaining unpaid.

Not sure what my next move is here

Redx

No move at all , they rejected the offer

Cbay27

I guess I strap a pair on and prepare to go to court or pay it, not keen on either!!

Redx

Correct , you have hit the nail firmly on the head

beamerguy

£70.00 which has been accrued in accordance with Clause 23.1(b) of the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme (of which Premier Park Ltd is a member) Code of Practice. Clause 2.1(b) sets out ‘where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.’

The BPA code of practice applies only to it's members. As you are not a member, the code is meaningless to you and you are not legally bound to a code that is unregulated.
The BPA are enticing it's members to break the law being POFA2012 and the ruling of the Beavis case that clearly says the charge of the ticket includes all costs

THE BPA ENCOURAGES ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

Please note as this matter is before Court Proceedings we will not be commenting on your uncorroborated and uncited purported precedent concerning BW Legal and Britannia.

Premier Park throwing a wobbly then ?
uncorroborated oh dear, don't they know what the courts have said about fake add-ons >>>> ABUSE OF PROCESS

Come on Premier Park, ask your mates at BWLegal, they will give you details of how they get their claims struck out in court ???

waamo

They might not want to comment on your "uncorroborated and uncited proported precedent" now but they will sure have to comment in court.