Residential PCN: Premier Park Ltd ordered to pay £500 in costs at Southampton County Court

BTSOAP

In The County Court and the Family Court at Southampton     
Before Deputy District Judge Guppy        Sitting in Courtroom 11
Wednesday 27 January 2021       10:45 AM     (BT MEET ME) F8DP7R6Y
PREMIER PARK LIMITED -v- JONES - T/E 15 MINUTES – APPLICATION


Greetings to all on this warm Bank Holiday Monday.

Thank you to all who give their time and advice to this forum. You provided me with information to win my case after a 5+ year battle over a PCN in a residential car park outside the flat I lived in at the time.

It had been a long time coming after a COVID cancelled hearing, a discontinuance and a costs hearing but I was awarded £500 and importantly, recognition from DDJ Guppy that I had a legal right to park in my own car park without interference from a third party.

I attended a hearing in February 2020 (Thanks to DDJ Taylor) to get an idea of the processes involved and how everything worked but COVID put an end to attended hearings. The original hearing was moved from March 2020 to October 2020 but I received the discontinuance the day before.

I wanted something in return for the time I had spent on the case so wrote to the court asking for a costs hearing. Getting a costs hearing after writing to the procedural Judge with respect to CPR r.23.3(2)(b) meant  PP had a case to answer. I felt I was at a disadvantage on the end of a phone but that’s the situation we find ourselves in.

The Hearing: The phone rang on time and I registered. DDJ Guppy welcomed me after a short while and after noting the hearing type and matter introduced the advocate. I prepared a Rights of Audience bundle for the original hearing and brought this to the attention to the Judge. He didn’t seem interested and with 15 minutes allocated to the hearing I thought it would be a good idea to move on.

I set out my main legal arguments. Practice Direction requires both parties to set out their position early and I did so in March 2016. I wrote to PP asking them to take me to court because I knew I was entitled to park in my own car park. They included this letter in their evidence bundle.

Yet here I was in 2021 explaining to the Judge that the Deed of Covenant has primacy of contract, their Landowner agreement was with a different company to the one I was paying service charges to and their blurry picture of a permit meant that their case was always going to fail. That they were suspended from monitoring the car park because tenants were in uproar about receiving PCNs should have rang alarm bells down in Exeter…

Fortunately for PP the Judge only recorded his voice so I could only obtain the Judgment transcript. He refused any award for data protection breaches, harassment and trespass but implied I could take the matter to court separately if I so wished. He found they were unreasonable and awarded me £500 payable in 21 days.

Here are some documents that may aid others in a similar predicament.

 01 General From of Judgement of Order – costs award
www.dropbox.com/s/42vfxdm1nx4kdpg/01%20C%20Cost%20Order.pdf?dl=0
 02 Transcript of Main Judgement (only the voice of the Judge on recording  )
www.dropbox.com/s/714wquq7sabw8cn/02%20C%20SJONES%2C%20F8DP7R6Y%2C%20PREMIER%20PARK%20Transcription.pdf?dl=0
 03 General From of Judgement of Order – costs hearing
www.dropbox.com/s/e1amzremrckh0rz/03%20C%20General%20From%20of%20Judgement%20of%20Order%20%E2%80%93%20costs%20hearing.pdf?dl=0
 04 Letter to the procedural Judge asking for costs
www.dropbox.com/s/pjuljss3bo0totu/04%20C%20TWIMC%20%2B%20Costs%20Hearing%20Legal%20Arguement.pdf?dl=0
 05 BW Legal Witness Statement – costs hearing
www.dropbox.com/s/285xxit5lhctmsv/05%20BW%20Legal%20Witness%20Statement%20%E2%80%93%20costs%20hearing.pdf?dl=0
 06 BW Legal Witness Statement – original hearing (note blurry PCN photo and timestamp of sign)
www.dropbox.com/s/9a8ofbvuid5fwtv/06%20C%20BWL%20Witness%20Statement.pdf?dl=0
 07 POPLA Appeal
www.dropbox.com/s/92js9ll98780cfq/07%20C%20POPLA.pdf?dl=0

The 05 Witness Statement is interesting and quotes a post from this forum. The statement by Mr Byers-Nolan was riddled with errors (word for word? Really?) and inconsistencies, ignored the main points of the case and was delivered so late that the Judge ignored it. As he did with my skeleton argument…. 
 
You might think I would be steaming with anger with PP, BW Legal, DRP, Gladstones, CST Law, Zenith Collections et al, but no. If POPLA are going to boast on their website that they take “into consideration the relevant law, guidance and standards and the BPA Code of Practice.” they should do exactly that. Don’t employ someone with experience of “conflict resolution” and “problem solving” to decide on points of law. How about employing someone with a legal background to decide on legal matters? The new Government CoP will hopefully remove POPLA from the equation.

And finally, for the Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal employees who lurk on this forum: we still have a BIG problem with the other 24 PCNs you plastered my vehicles with, don’t we?


BTSOAP

Half_way

Congratulations,

Next you should look at turning your ire onto the management company, as principal they are jointly and severally liable for they actions of their agents, the parking company.

Also if the parking company has no good reason to access and process your personal data - ie its your space you have the right to park there, and no due dilligence/checking has taken place before the PPC was allowed to access personal data there could also be a GDPR angle to this.

 All in all this could be very difficult for the management company and the individuals involved who signed the deal with the parking company.

beamerguy

A great story 

You are right about POPLA who are a totally inept organisation not fir for purpose and yes, once there is a government appeals service, POPLA and the scam based IAS will become dodo's 
Certainly the staff of POPLA should be seeking new employment,  I understand there are many jobs for bar staff going  ?

I assume that in the end it was BWLegal who brought the claim.  As you know it was a try on, BWL should be aware, there are enough cases about residential parking to consider.

This cost Premier a lot of money and the loss is only due to the legal.
You say there are 24 more to go .... that is a potential pay out of £12,000 for Premier ?

In the end, it's all down the legal to advise the PPC ..... 
Premier should seek REAL legal advice because this is going to happen time after time.

It is indeed shameful that a legal who claims "there are the best in the business" FAILS with such ignorance and incompetence ..... 

Will Premier take notice, doubt it, not whilst there are cheapo services around  So we expect the Premier bank account to be drained even further

Coupon-mad

And finally, for the Premier Park Ltd and BW Legal employees who lurk on this forum: we still have a BIG problem with the other 24 PCNs you plastered my vehicles with, don’t we?

    

Well done! 

I think you should seriously consider now issuing a claim for harassment, abuse of your personal data and misleading commercial practice under the CPUTRs, if you firstly send a Letter before Claim and also tell Premier Park to cease and desist and cancel all the supposed 'outstanding' parking charges.


01 General From of Judgement of Order – costs award
https://www.dropbox.com/s/42vfxdm1nx4kdpg/01 C Cost Order.pdf?dl=0

 02 Transcript of Main Judgement (only the voice of the Judge on recording )
https://www.dropbox.com/s/714wquq7sabw8cn/02 C SJONES, F8DP7R6Y, PREMIER PARK Transcription.pdf?dl=0

 03 General From of Judgement of Order – costs hearing
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1amzremrckh0rz/03 C General From of Judgement of Order – costs hearing.pdf?dl=0

04 Letter to the procedural Judge asking for costs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjuljss3bo0totu/04 C TWIMC + Costs Hearing Legal Arguement.pdf?dl=0

05 BW Legal Witness Statement – costs hearing
https://www.dropbox.com/s/285xxit5lhctmsv/05 BW Legal Witness Statement – costs hearing.pdf?dl=0

06 BW Legal Witness Statement – original hearing (note blurry PCN photo and timestamp of sign)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9a8ofbvuid5fwtv/06 C BWL Witness Statement.pdf?dl=0

07 POPLA Appeal
https://www.dropbox.com/s/92js9ll98780cfq/07 C POPLA.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

Nice bit of Bank Holiday news. Looking forward to the sequel .... when you go for the jugular. 

Directors of PP also have director roles with UKCPM and ParkWatch (Defence Systems). The tangled web in which this industry operates. 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06434377/officers

beamerguy

Yes, Premier parking should wake up and understand that a Robo Claimer who knows little or nothing is going to cost Premier a lot of money.

We do understand why they cannot afford REAL solicitors

Le_Kirk

Brilliant, a great read!

Eminowa

beamerguy said:

A great story 

You are right about POPLA who are a totally inept organisation not fir for purpose and yes, once there is a government appeals service, POPLA and the scam based IAS will become dodo's 
Certainly the staff of POPLA should be seeking new employment,  I understand there are many jobs for bar staff going  ?

I assume that in the end it was BWLegal who brought the claim.  As you know it was a try on, BWL should be aware, there are enough cases about residential parking to consider.

This cost Premier a lot of money and the loss is only due to the legal.
You say there are 24 more to go .... that is a potential pay out of £12,000 for Premier ?

In the end, it's all down the legal to advise the PPC ..... 
Premier should seek REAL legal advice because this is going to happen time after time.

It is indeed shameful that a legal who claims "there are the best in the business" FAILS with such ignorance and incompetence ..... 

Will Premier take notice, doubt it, not whilst there are cheapo services around  So we expect the Premier bank account to be drained even further

I never knew its the ppc thats pays if their solicitor losses in court...I taught bwlegal n other cut n nail solicitors buys these pcn from the ppc

Umkomaas

Eminowa said:

beamerguy said:

A great story 

You are right about POPLA who are a totally inept organisation not fir for purpose and yes, once there is a government appeals service, POPLA and the scam based IAS will become dodo's 
Certainly the staff of POPLA should be seeking new employment,  I understand there are many jobs for bar staff going  ?

I assume that in the end it was BWLegal who brought the claim.  As you know it was a try on, BWL should be aware, there are enough cases about residential parking to consider.

This cost Premier a lot of money and the loss is only due to the legal.
You say there are 24 more to go .... that is a potential pay out of £12,000 for Premier ?

In the end, it's all down the legal to advise the PPC ..... 
Premier should seek REAL legal advice because this is going to happen time after time.

It is indeed shameful that a legal who claims "there are the best in the business" FAILS with such ignorance and incompetence ..... 

Will Premier take notice, doubt it, not whilst there are cheapo services around  So we expect the Premier bank account to be drained even further

I never knew its the ppc thats pays if their solicitor losses in court...I taught bwlegal n other cut n nail solicitors buys these pcn from the ppc

They're not allowed to.