PPC situation

Redx

It seems to me that you are at the LBC stage , have done the SAR and are awaiting a SAR reply from Premier Park and a Claim form pack from the CCBC in Northampton !

So yes , start drafting your defence based on the defence template post by coupon mad , adapting paragraphs 2 and 3 !

The time for research and evidence gathering is in this impasse stage

1505grandad

Can you confirm the ppc is Premier Parking Solutions  -  a member of the IPC so no POPLA involved.

ss123

@1505grandad - thanks yes that appears to be the case. Also a member of the BPA. The assertion is that there is a discrepancy in the VRN entered in PDT - no evidence provided / think it’s a faulty machine / no proof provided yet. I understand BPA has updated its guidance to say it’s members should not pursue minor VRN errors (due presumably to the scale of errors with PDTs) Thanks 

KeithP

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
They are not an Approved Operator of the BPA and are therefore not bound by the terms of the BPA's Code of Practice. 

ss123

KeithP said:

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
They are not an Approved Operator of the BPA and are therefore not bound by the terms of the BPA's Code of Practice. 

@KeithP - thanks however PPC sent pictures to me of the car park Ts & Cs - which are extensive and do include the BPA logo - is that misrepresentation?

 

Umkomaas

ss123 said:

KeithP said:

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
They are not an Approved Operator of the BPA and are therefore not bound by the terms of the BPA's Code of Practice. 

@KeithP - thanks however PPC sent pictures to me of the car park Ts & Cs - which are extensive and do include the BPA logo - is that misrepresentation?

Is the logo in a rectangle shape, or a roundel (circular shape)?

ss123

Umkomaas said:

ss123 said:

KeithP said:

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
They are not an Approved Operator of the BPA and are therefore not bound by the terms of the BPA's Code of Practice. 

@KeithP - thanks however PPC sent pictures to me of the car park Ts & Cs - which are extensive and do include the BPA logo - is that misrepresentation?

Is the logo in a rectangle shape, or a roundel (circular shape)?

@U@Umkomaas - thanks for query - It is rectangular 

Umkomaas

ss123 said:

Umkomaas said:

ss123 said:

KeithP said:

Premier Parking Solutions Ltd are members of the IPC's Accredited Operator Scheme.
They are not an Approved Operator of the BPA and are therefore not bound by the terms of the BPA's Code of Practice. 

@KeithP - thanks however PPC sent pictures to me of the car park Ts & Cs - which are extensive and do include the BPA logo - is that misrepresentation?

Is the logo in a rectangle shape, or a roundel (circular shape)?

@U@Umkomaas - thanks for query - It is rectangular 

That means they are corporate members of the BPA - receive newsletters, invites to conferences etc, but gives them no access to the DVLA database. It's the roundel that indicates their membership of that particular Approved/Accredited Operator Scheme, and access to the DVLA database. No doubt their roundel shows the IPC as the ATA.

The roundel spells danger in private parking!

D_P_Dance

3 letters received from BWL: 1st - £60 added - BWL debt recovery (is that legal)

Yeas, but it is not lawful, read this and complain to your MP

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

Redx

Most parking companies are corporate members of the BPA , so the rectangle is expected , you have misinterpreted it and come to an incorrect conclusion. It's correctly represented , so definitely not misrepresentation. This has been chewed over hundreds of times on here and the newbies FAQ sticky thread has links to explanations ! It's no Biggie , nothing to see , move along 🤔🤔😋😋