Premier Parking Solutions - Im Now Panicking

Tommy8

Coupon-mad said:

 ok so its looking not so defendable for me.

That's not what we said at all.

Is everything else in the template still worth me trying or shall I admit defeat? 

I'm not even answering that.  Cleary you cannot have read the template defence or your replies here if you think you have no case and should pay then extortionate inflated amount to avoid likely winning in court.  The fact it's now a building site makes no odds.

Care to ellaborate?
The response showed that i cant argue "no loss". The signage is by the book. I do not have a great reason to explain why i didnt use the P&D for the additional time. What other leg do i have to stand on? 
Ofcourse i do not want to pay their extortionate fine, its criminal in my mind!
I expected the building site situation to be of no use but just thought it was a mention just incase you guys more in the know could use it as a "technicality" or something. 

Coupon-mad

It can easily have taken 9 minutes between driving past a camera in moving traffic, until the moment your coins or payment generated a ticket at a machine.  And 9 minutes to leave is allowed until both Codes of Practice, regardless of BPA or IPC firms (min 10 mins after paid-for time is set in stone).  What you DON'T say is state that you overstayed 18 mins past, unless you know you did.   

Usually the only evidence is two cameras timings that are not synchronised with the machine time.  So the best argument is 8 or 9 mins either side of paid-for time and that this is allowed as a consideration/transaction period plus a grace period afterwards.  Put them to strict proof to the contrary.

Thanks to the ancient and horribly out of touch (apart from Lord Toulson who was clued up enough to dissent) Judges at the Supreme Court, who some parking fighters concluded, couldn't spot a parking firm scam penalty if it slapped them in the face, 'no loss' has not been an argument since 2015, yet since then we have seen 99% wins in court, or thereabouts, for five years. 

So the fact you were put right on that changes nothing, it just stopped you going down an unwinnable rabbit hole of a doomed argument.  

You can see what the rest of the defence says and it's far from all about signage.

Redx

Put simply , if Barry Beavis and his lawyers could not successfully argue it in County Court , Court of appeal , plus the Supreme court , several years ago , you have no chance of winning that argument , so should concentrate on no landowner authority and poor signage , plus cutting your losses by getting the spurious charges removed by the judge , so you pay less of you lose in Court

The land registry has a database of landowners , so you can find them by paying out £3 

Redx

Put simply , if Barry Beavis and his lawyers could not successfully argue it in County Court , Court of appeal , plus the Supreme court , several years ago , you have no chance of winning that argument , so should concentrate on no landowner authority , grace periods and poor signage , plus cutting your losses by getting the spurious charges removed by the judge , so you pay less of you lose in Court

The land registry has a database of landowners , so you can find them by paying out £3 

Coupon-mad

No-one has the 'no loss' argument but it does almost no-one any harm.  There are always defences against these scam PCNs.

Tommy8

SAR Update
I have received my SAR back and it shows the following timings:
Camera: Entered car park at 12:28:17
PDT: Paid for an hour at 12:32:01
PDT: Time up at 13:32:01
Camera: Left car park at 13:51:55
Time between entering and coins in the PDT = 3 Minutes and 44 seconds
Time between my ticket expiring and me leaving = 19 minutes and 54 seconds. 

Le_Kirk

As @Coupon-mad writes, you are going to have to rely on time it took to buy ticket and time it took to leave bearing in mind the fact that it is the claimant's responsibility to PROVE that the clocks are synchronised.  Also it took time to manoeuvre out of the car park, avoiding other drivers etc.  Your last post showing the timings is only good for the claimant IF the clocks are accurate and synchronised. 

nosferatu1001

Any queues on the way out?

Tommy8

Hello Everyone, 

I have an old fine that i thought bwlegal gave up on but they have now sent me a letter of claim. 

Here's all the info:
- I overstayed by 20 minutes in an ANPR car park run by Premier Parking Solutions Limited. 
- At first i stupidly ignored the fine thinking this was how you deal with them, therefore i missed the initial appeals process. 
- Premier parking solutions were hassling me, which i ignored and then bwlegal started of which i ignored at first. 
- Then, as per this forum, i sent premier parking solutions a SAR request and emailed bwlegal letting them know i have done this and to put my account on hold for 30 days. 
- After asking for more ID, Premier parking then sent me attachments showing pictures of my car and the parking meter log etc. 

Contact from bwlegal and premier parking solutions then ceased for about a year and a half therefore i assumed they knew i was going to be a waste of time and money because i was fighting it. 

- The car park is totally by the book, i could not find any technicalities to help me. Same was for all the correspondence sent to me. 
- I cannot find who owns the car park which is frustrating. Ive been to all the businesses in the area and no-one seems to own it or know who owns it. Im at a loss here. 

 I have now received this letter of claim and to be honest its causing me stress with it all. I thought before just paying it i would ask one more question on here just incase. Where do i go from here?

The Date on my letter is 01/11/2022. Date of contravention is 30/05/2020. Expiry date is 06/12/2022. 

Best Regards

Tom

Umkomaas

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, explains how to deal with a Letter Of/Before Claim. 

I thought before just paying it

One thing is almost certain, the amount you would pay them now would be much more than you would pay them even should you lose at court. While you haven't stated how much they are currently demanding (or how that is broken down), if it includes 'Admin' or 'Contractual' or 'Debt Resolution' costs, judges up and down the land are routinely wiping those off the claim.

No sensible reason to pay this now.