'Unauthorised parking' what does this actually mean?

Ralph-y

So ... you have been in touch with ' Guest Relations' .... and they are ????????

you should only speak ( email letters only)  to the manager and or national CEO  .... customer service types job normally comprises of keeping stuff away from the manager

Ralph

barns80

Ralph-y said:

you should only speak ( email letters only)  to the manager and or national CEO  .... customer service types job normally comprises of keeping stuff away from the manager

Good point. Basically, the only way I found to complain on Premier Inn's website was via a complaints form. This then led to a reply from 'guest relations'. I suppose I should look a bit harder to find a different contact?

Ralph-y

yes  .......

find the manager / manageress name ....

google 'CEO email' .....

Ralph

Coupon-mad

No, they don't have to prove a car was stationary but it would be a defence if a car was only there briefly, and didn't park (and that would be up to the Defendant to voice).

You'll like this:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/anpr-technology.html

barns80

OK - so sorry this has taken me a long time to post these photos!
I've received a response from ParkMaven, it looks like the usual templated letter telling me to go to POPLA, which I intend to do. My personal belief is that the signs at the car park are totally inadequate - but I'd appreciate some other opinions

So, this is the road leading to the entrance to the car park. You can see the turning on the left ahead - this is the car park. This road is generally very busy, with cars parked along it. It's not possible to stop at the entrance on the way in, because you are likely to be blocking traffic.



A bit closer to the entrance, I've circled the signpost on the way into the car park. You can see it's actually impossible to see what the sign is about, or read anything on it, because it's parallel to the direction of travel, and even on the way into the car park, you're still at an odd angle to the sign.


This is the actual sign viewed from the opposite side of the road. You can see the large text helpfully states at the top 'Free Parking', then '3 Hours Free Parking', then 'Pay On Arrival', then finally at the bottom 'Parking Charges Apply'. Even if you could see the sign while driving in (which you really can't), I think stating 'Free Parking' at the top is deceptive.


A close-up of the sign:


Now, referring back to photo #3 above showing the entrance and the sign, you'll see that there are parking bays directly ahead on the way in.

So.. here's what happened on the day. It was pouring down with rain, absolutely hammering it down, and the windscreen wipers had stopped working. Stuck in the middle of the road, getting out of the car and cleaning the water off the windscreen, it seemed sensible to pull into this car park that was about 100 metres ahead. The spaces directly in front were free. This is what you see from those parking spaces:

There are *no* prominent signs outside the Beefeater. I need to go back a check that green sign to the left, from memory it said something about ANPR. It certainly doesn't say anything about charges. So, from my point of view, you can literally drive into the car park without seeing a sign, pull up without seeing a sign, and then turn around and drive back out without seeing a sign. How are you supposed to know charges apply?

Well, if you look around the car park, specifically looking away from the buildings and back out towards the road, there are these signs:

They're really high up in the air compared to the parking spaces. If I parked in one of these spaces, even standing up out of the car you have to look up to see them. I could imagine people easily missing these - and only *one* of them mentions the actual charges.

Here's the first type of sign in the car park:


And the second type of sign - the only one I found that actually mentioned the £100 charge:


My opinion is that these signs are deceptive in using the green colouring, especially where the £100 charge is mentioned, because it not only makes it hard to read, it makes it seem like these aren't warning signs.

On my original photos I can just about read the small print, if this would help I'll transcribe it all.

Thanks for all the help so far!

Coupon-mad

What horribly unclear colour choice for a sign.  And the wording in the little grid is illegible.

Castle

The first type of sign is actually in the name of an entirely different company-Your Parking Space Ltd.

D_P_Dance

Signs are  important, judges can throw out cases because of  poor signs, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1i

fisherjim

I used to work for Whitbread they had some huge pubs and old hotels with large plots of land, in the 80's they developed Beefeater, and then came Travel Inn then Premier Inn. These large Beefeaters were ideal properties to site a Travel Inn and this will have fitted the portfolio.

That car park will be their land, it's not on a stand alone retail site, service area or seafront and the Parkmaven signs which don't conform to the BPA standards (ask to see their last BPA site audit, they won't have one) say quite clearly "On behalf of Whitbread", you have been lied to.

barns80

D_P_Dance said:

Signs are  important, judges can throw out cases because of  poor signs, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1i

I had a read through of that thread - thanks! I may use some of the wording I found there in my POPLA appeal.

fisherjim said:

I used to work for Whitbread they had some huge pubs and old hotels with large plots of land, in the 80's they developed Beefeater, and then came Travel Inn then Premier Inn. These large Beefeaters were ideal properties to site a Travel Inn and this will have fitted the portfolio.

That car park will be their land, it's not on a stand alone retail site, service area or seafront and the Parkmaven signs which don't conform to the BPA standards (ask to see their last BPA site audit, they won't have one) say quite clearly "On behalf of Whitbread", you have been lied to.

I was sure that the land was probably owned by the same company that owns Premier Inn, but when both talking to reception at the actual hotel, and in my exchanges with 'Guest Relations', they refused to be drawn on who the landowner was, falling back on the line that they don't always own the land and that I should ask someone else who owns the land. 'Guest Relations' said the hotel would be able to tell me, the hotel on the other hand said I should take my issue up with the landowner rather than the hotel, as it was apparently nothing to do with them. Both were keen to point out that there was an appeals process, and that was the only way I could proceed (which of course meant losing the 40% discount that ParkMaven tried to strong-arm me into taking).

With regards to the BPA site audit, is it worth trying to get this for the POPLA appeal? As it stands at the moment, ParkMaven have replied to my appeal and told me to take it POPLA. Are they duty-bound to reply to any further enquiries I make as part of my appeal?

Fantastically I got a follow-up email from 'Guest Relations' at the Premier Inn asking me for feedback on whether my issue had been dealt with satisfactorily!