PCN. Premier Park, Nottingham Street Car Park, Melton Mowbray - Advice, Please

Coupon-mad

Must admit we've all only just learnt from @Umkomaas how to use the 'new' search function that was foisted upon us in the Spring and isn't as simple and intuitive as the old one.

Fruitcake

Sometimes you get better results using an internet search engine, and adding variations of MSE or moneysavingexpert to the search criteria.

Falcon269

Hi and Happy New Year to you all.

A quick update.  Following the advice kindly given here, I wrote to PP (with proof of postage retained ) as follows on 17 Dec 21:

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE XXXXXX  VEHICLE REGISTRATION XXXXXXXX

 

1.            Your e-mail dated 19 November 2021 refers.  It advises that you have rejected my appeal against the parking charge issued on 4 November under your reference ........

2.            I do not accept the parking charge and dispute your appeal decision for the reasons which include but are not limited to the following:

                Non Specific Reason for Parking Charge 

a.            The reason for the issue of the PCN to the vehicle in question is given as Whole Period of Parking Not Paid For.  This is a non-specific statement and I require Premier Park to provide amplification detailing the following:

i.              The specific period of time you maintain the parking event occurred for including the exact parking commencement and conclusion times, not solely the entry/departure times claimed in the PCN.

ii.             The amount of payment required for the specific parking period with an explanation of why you claim there was a shortfall.

iii.            The amount actually paid as recorded by your payment machine against the VRN of the vehicle in question.  As proof of this, I require you to provide me with a copy of the payment machine receipts for the period 12 hours prior to and 12 hours subsequent to the parking event.  The VRNs for other vehicles may be redacted but otherwise the machine receipts are required in complete and unredacted form.

iv.           Depending on examination of the receipts provided under 2.a.iii above, I reserve the right to request maintenance records of the payment machine.

v.            You should take note when compiling your response to the above that I do not accept the unfair non-existent 'consideration period' rule inflicted on motorists by the BPA's changes in their Code of Practice, Version 8, issued in January 2020. (BPA CoP).

               

Vehicle Registration Number Images Incomplete/Altered

a.            The ANPR images on the PCN do not show the date/time stamp or any other details of the images captured and proffered as evidence in support of the charge.

b.            The ANPR images additionally appear to have been digitally altered.  The front and rear number plates of the vehicle in question have clearly visible dealership logos which are not evident on the ANPR enlargements.  This is in direct contravention of Sect 21.5 of the BPA CoP which states:

A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph.  All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.

c.             Because the ANPR images provided in the PCN fail to meet the standards required by the BPA CoP (Sections 21 and 22), in that they are incomplete, inaccurate and have been retouched or digitally altered, they cannot be relied upon as evidence of the alleged contravention of the terms of the parking event under dispute. 

Landowner Details Not Shown on Site Signage

a.            The Premier Park signage at the Nottingham Street car park, Melton Mowbray, does not show the name of the landowner nor provide reference to the contract permitting Premier Park to manage the land for parking purposes and to issue PCNs against vehicle keepers.

b.            To rectify this shortcoming, I require Premier Park to provide me with a complete, unredacted copy of the contract under which it manages the land, to include the name and contact details of the landowner who authorized the contract.

3.            You are advised that I do not intend to appeal this PCN through POPLA.  It would be a pointless exercise as the latter entity is not independent, being in fact a self-serving vassal of the private parking companies.  This fact is evidenced by the impending formation of a truly independent Single Appeals Service as part of government legislation to be enacted in 2022 to regulate the rogue private parking company industry.

4.            At this juncture, I offer you the opportunity to revisit your rejection of my appeal given the unsound nature of your case.  Should you decline to withdraw the PCN, you are advised that it is my intention to submit this to the Single Appeals Service when it becomes operational, assuming that it is made available to existing cases such as this.  Failing this I will be content for the dispute to proceed to judgement by the courts.

5.            In the meantime, you are instructed not the pass this dispute to any debt collection agency, nor to add additional illegal charges, as this case remains in dispute.  You are reminded that under FCA rules, which the BPA expects AOS members to abide by, a disputed debt cannot go to debt recovery and members must not make such demands.

Unsurprisingly, this failed to dissuade PP from pursuing the matter.  I received the following from them today:

PP have ignored all requests for information and clarification of the reason for the PPC.  Again, no surprise.  I assume the above is a stock response threatening Debt Recovery Service action to frighten me into paying up now.  Not happening.

I believe I need do nothing further at this point and in particular should avoid responding in any way to any contact by a DRS firm.  Presumably the next step might/will be the initiation of legal action should PP decide to go that way?

Much as I hoped to get clarification of the PPC, I assume that I will gain nothing by writing again to PP on the subject and that all will be put forward as part of their case and/or in response to my SRA in due course.

Is there anything I've overlooked, please?  Anything I should be doing in the down time waiting for their next step?

Many thanks.

MothballsWallet

Fruitcake said:

Sometimes you get better results using an internet search engine, and adding variations of MSE or moneysavingexpert to the search criteria.

With Google, you can add the following to the search terms: site:forums.moneysavingexpert.com

This will tell Google to look on the MSE Forums for results and nowhere else.

I'm not sure about other search engines though, they may have their own version of this.

Coupon-mad

Dear PP and your purported 'appeals team',

Re your letter dated xx/xx/xx.  You didn't read my communication properly, to the surprise of precisely no-one who is following my case and advising me on MSE forum.

I didn't ask for another POPLA code but you've tried to mislead me anyway by saying that you are 'unable' to issue another code.  You can.  BPA AOS member Parking Operators can and do issue new POPLA codes in disputed cases.  

What you meant to type was that you are 'unwilling' (not unable) to offer ADR and instead you want to add a false £70 on top and pretend you have incurred that cost.  You have two problems:

(A)  the courts expect traders to offer ADR and a failure to do so is unreasonable conduct.  I asked for the new upcoming Single Appeals Service when it starts this year please. I can be one of the first to test it as a truly independent and fair ADR (at last).  But I will settle for POPLA in the interests of resolving the dispute.

(B)  you can't pass a disputed debt to your friends/the next desk to go through the motions of what you call 'debt recovery'.  As the debt is disputed, the FCA  and CSA rules that the BPA expect to be complied with state that a disputed debt is not a recoverable debt and the so-called 'debt recovery' rabble would have to return the case uncollected anyway.  Let me guess...you then plan to add the fake £70 anyway?

No, you won't.  You can't abuse the pre-action phase by running up disproportionate 'costs' in a disputed case.

I do not consent to my data being shared with any so called 'DRA' in your rogue industry and I will either see you in court or await the offer of ADR that I was seeking.

POPLA or Single Appeals Service.  I can wait.

In the meantime, I have complained to my MP and to your clients at this site.  You and your ilk are going to have to leave behind the clamper mentality this year.

yours faithfully,

Falcon269

Well, I like that a lot!  Thank you very much. 

I have a few additions in the same vein which I will patch in and then bring back here for comment/amendment.

Can't help feeling that the more they try to deceive and intimidate their victims, the greater the chance they run of alienating the judge should they take it through the court house doors.

Either way, game on.

Falcon269

Wasn't planning to do this tonight but got on a roll.

I have changed the tone of the reply but I hope the content and intent are still clear:

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE XXXXXX  VEHICLE REGISTRATION XXXXX 

1.            Your letter dated 30 December 2021 refers.  You failed to read my previous communication properly, which comes as no surprise to me or the group of experienced members of the MSE forum who are following this case and providing me with outstanding advice and assistance.

2.            I did not ask for another POPLA code but you have tried to mislead me anyway by saying that you are unable to issue another code.  This is a deliberate falsehood on your part as BPA AOS member Parking Operators can and do issue new POPLA codes in disputed cases.  

3.            It would be more accurate to state that you are unwilling to offer ADR, rather than unable, and instead you want to add a false £70 on top of the parking charge and pretend you have incurred that as an administrative cost.  There are two problems with this deceit:

                a.            The courts expect traders to offer ADR and a failure to do so is unreasonable conduct.  I asked for this PCN to be presented to the new Single Appeals Service when it starts this year.  I would be delighted to be one of the first to test it as a truly independent and fair ADR.  However, I will settle for POPLA in the interests of resolving the dispute in the meantime.  Note.  Have included this but previous advice was to ignore POPLA.  Since it is such a biased process, not sure why returning to this stage would be helpful.

                b.            You ignored the fact that you are not allowed to pass a disputed debt to your co-conspirators to go through the motions of what you call 'debt recovery'.  As the debt is disputed, the FCA  and CSA rules - that the BPA expect you to comply with -  state that a disputed debt is not a recoverable debt.  The debt recovery team would have to return the case uncollected but you would no doubt attempt to use this as further justification for padding the illegal administrative charges.  You are reminded that it is an abuse during the pre-action phase to run up disproportionate 'costs' in a disputed case.

4.            You are to note that I do not consent to my data being shared with any so-called 'Debt Recovery Agency' in your rogue industry.  I also draw your attention to the fact that your continued attempts to deceive and intimidate me into paying your bogus parking charge are stacking up nicely in my favour should you persist in taking this to court.   

5.            At this juncture, I invite you to revisit my letter dated 16 December 2021 and to decide whether it is in your best interests to continue with your claim against me.  Knowing how your industry operates, I anticipate you will continue to harass me with threats of debt recovery and legal action which will be ignored.  You may alternatively decide to offer the ADR that I have requested through the Single Appeals Service but if not, I stand ready to see you in court.    

6.            In the meantime, I have complained to my MP and expressed my hope that this year will see the end of the legacy clamper mentality and methods employed by your shoddy industry.  I shall also conduct my own enquiries to determine the details of the site landowners and will be complaining directly to them over your conduct.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Great!  And if you don't want a POPLA code, then by all means remove that bit.

Le_Kirk

It is the IAS that we have suggested is a kangaroo court and should be avoided not POPLA.

Falcon269

Letter sent today as above but without the invitation to revert this to POPLA.  I see no point in wasting time and effort with an appeal which would almost certainly be rejected.  

I'll keep you all posted.

Thanks!