PCN - Premier Parking Logistics

akramir

Hi 

I’ve reviewed the newbie post.

My wife received a PCN while picking up kids from school on Friday (25-Jul-2021). The parking is adjacent to a carpet fitting company and is a 5 min walk to the school. The shop was closed so the wife assumed it’s ok to park there.

I think based on the advise we had to wait 25 days as they are IPC member but it was a windscreen PCN but we appealed the same day (my error) using the text provided.

We just received the below reply:-

Dear Irfan Akram,

Reference 955573 Appeal for Parking Charge Notice.

Thank you for your email.

I have read and investigated your particular appeal and unfortunately your claim has been unsuccessful for the following reasons:

You were issued with a parking charge notice for UNAUTHORISED PARKING.

This is private land and the terms and conditions state that parking is permitted for: Patrons only whilst they are using the premises.

The Enforcement Officer was unable to verify you as a patron.

Your vehicle was parked on private land in front of clear terms and conditions. You were not a customer of the business at the time the charge was issued.

Whilst we appreciate the points raised within your appeal and regardless of your business on the day in question you had no authority to park on this private land. This is not car parking for the local school and local businesses.

Please see photographic evidence at.

It is your responsibility to read the signs.

If you believe this decision is incorrect you are entitled to appeal to The Independent Appeals Service (IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge reference number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this email. Please visit for full details.

Please note that should you wish to appeal to The IAS  and your appeal is rejected you will be unable to pay at the reduced rate of £60.00, the initial charge will be £100.00.

To avoid further action you will need to make a payment of £60.00

This is the reduced rate which needs to be paid within 14 days of the above date

Failure to pay in the required time will incur further costs.

Payment can be made online at or on our 24 hour telephone payment line 0844 304 0103.

Yours Sincerely

Premier Parking Logistics

PLEASE NOTE YOUR APPEAL HAS BEEN REJECTED THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS APPEAL

Can somebody help on next steps please?

Umkomaas

So you seem to be dealing with two separate parking firms - review your thread title and the firm's name at the end of the appeal decision, and about a parking event that occurred sometime in the future!  Please check it all out as we need accurate information to work on. 

And if that's your real name, that needs editing out too!

akramir

Umkomaas said:

So you seem to be dealing with two separate parking firms - review your thread title and the firm's name at the end of the appeal decision, and about a parking event that occurred sometime in the future!  Please check it all out as we need accurate information to work on. 

And if that's your real name, that needs editing out too!

Hey sorry for my inaccuracies. The PCN date is 25-Jun-2021 and company name is Premier Parking Logistics.

I’ll try and figure out how to show my real name too

Coupon-mad

Why don't more drivers know that they can use single and double yellows on street to collect kids?

Never never seek out a private car park, you do not need one.  This is what the street is for (assisted alighting of a child from premises is exempt activity on yellow lines, just like loading/unloading is).

You (are you the keeper but not driver?) could appeal to the IAS stating that you were not driving and the operator has not shown any evidence that the driver was not a patron and you require that evidence in order to make an informed decision, as well as images of the signage because, as a local, you believe this site is not clearly signed.  Also there has been no Notice to Keeper so you are not liable in law anyway.

akramir

Coupon-mad said:

Why don't more drivers know that they can use single and double yellows on street to collect kids?

Never never seek out a private car park, you do not need one.  This is what the street is for (assisted alighting of a child from premises is exempt activity on yellow lines, just like loading/unloading is).

You (are you the keeper but not driver?) could appeal to the IAS stating that you were not driving and the operator has not shown any evidence that the driver was not a patron and you require that evidence in order to make an informed decision, as well as images of the signage because, as a local, you believe this site is not clearly signed.  Also there has been no Notice to Keeper so you are not liable in law anyway.

Thank you! The windscreen PCN I assume then is not a notice to keeper.

I will try that in my appeal. Is there a template for that in my appeal to IAS? I assume I should not bother replying to Premier Parking Logistics with this argument. 

Coupon-mad

No, just put what I said - NO TEMPLATE FOR IAS.

akramir

Coupon-mad said:

No, just put what I said - NO TEMPLATE FOR IAS.

Thank you! I assume in my appeal (I’m trying to fill the form in online) that I tell them they are trying to make me liable as per the below form:-

akramir

Coupon-mad said:

No, just put what I said - NO TEMPLATE FOR IAS.

Submitted thank you for your kind help!

akramir

Coupon-mad said:

No, just put what I said - NO TEMPLATE FOR IAS.

Hello

I just heard back from IAS:-



Attention! You need to log back into the system and upload your response to the operaters information and evidence or refer it straight to an Adjudicator.

Please read the following carefully.

The Parking Operator has now uploaded the evidence in respect of the parking charge which is detailed below. 

Parking Charge Number (PCN): 
Vehicle Registration: 
Issued On: 25/06/2021
Issued By: Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics

What do I need to do? 

You now have until 09/07/21 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.

This is what the operator has put in their response:-

The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 04/07/2021 20:24:38. 

The Operator Reported That...

The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 25/06/2021.
The charge is based in Contract.

The Operator Made The Following Comments...

Your vehicle was issued with a parking charge notice for UNAUTHORISED PARKING.

This is private land and the terms and conditions state that parking is permitted for: Patrons only whilst they are using the premises.

The Inspector was unable to verify the driver as a patron.

Your vehicle was parked on private land in front of clear terms and conditions. The driver was not a customer of the business at the time the charge was issued.

Whilst we appreciate the points raised within your appeal and regardless of your business on the day in question you had no authority to park on this private land. This is not car parking for the local school and local businesses.

It is your responsibility to read the signs.

If you were not the driver you need to forward the drivers full name and address otherwise as the keeper of the vehicle you are liable for the charge. The Inspector checks the premises before a charge is issued, the driver was not a patron of the business at the time the charge was issued.. The driver was witnessed returning from the school next door There are signs all around the car park including 2 showing terms and conditions that your vehicle was parked in front of. You have appealed and notified us you were the keeper.


Any next steps here would be greatly appreciated.

thanks
Irfan 

Coupon-mad

Dear IAS:

My response is that the operator has shown no evidence, and yet the IAS is an evidence-based service.  As I was not the driver, I would need to see evidence to answer my main appeal points, namely when alleging that the driver left the site I would need to see that evidence and also clear evidence of signage visible and legible near the car. 

I was not present so none of the information provided has reached the bar of a prima facie case.  I have seen no photo evidence of the driver 'leaving the site' nor even whether the driver was male or female, nor any signed statement that would convince me or the IAS that this is anything more than hearsay on the part of this notorious ex-clamper firm. 

The operator has shown the IAS no cause of acti9on against me, the keeper.  The POFA does not require a keeper to name the driver so there is no failure on my part and I am entitled to appeal as registered keeper, as the POFA Bill Impact Assessment in 2012 decided,  There is no obligation upon me.

The burden lies with the operator ro prove their case as a matter of law.

Also, the operator admits that there was a PCN placed on the car only a week ago, therefore we are still in the 28 days when ONLY a driver can possibly be the liable party.  The operator has said:

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 25/06/2021.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..

As a matter of fact and law, keeper liability is not legally possible at this time.  Perhaps I will be one of the rare 4% for whom IAS Adjudicators actually accept and uphold the appeal?  Over to you, IAS.

akramir

Coupon-mad said:

Dear IAS:

My response is that the operator has shown no evidence, and yet the IAS is an evidence-based service.  As I was not the driver, I would need to see evidence to answer my main appeal points, namely when alleging that the driver left the site I would need to see that evidence and also clear evidence of signage visible and legible near the car. 

I was not present so none of the information provided has reached the bar of a prima facie case.  I have seen no photo evidence of the driver 'leaving the site' nor even whether the driver was male or female, nor any signed statement that would convince me or the IAS that this is anything more than hearsay on the part of this notorious ex-clamper firm. 

The operator has shown the IAS no cause of acti9on against me, the keeper.  The POFA does not require a keeper to name the driver so there is no failure on my part and I am entitled to appeal as registered keeper, as the POFA Bill Impact Assessment in 2012 decided,  There is no obligation upon me.

The burden lies with the operator ro prove their case as a matter of law.

Also, the operator admits that there was a PCN placed on the car only a week ago, therefore we are still in the 28 days when ONLY a driver can possibly be the liable party.  The operator has said:

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.
The ticket was issued on 25/06/2021.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..

As a matter of fact and law, keeper liability is not legally possible at this time.  Perhaps I will be one of the rare 4% for whom IAS Adjudicators actually accept and uphold the appeal?  Over to you, IAS.

Thank you so much! I think the response has a limit of 1000 characters (crazy). I don’t suppose you have a shortened response text do you?