Walton Wilkins Court Claim

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Castle said:

Coupon-mad said:

The sign is bent round the pole!   Don't use your close-up pic of the straight sign.

Actually, the close-up pic of the straight sign, (5th photo down), shows the name of Mr Wilkins's new company-Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd-Company number 10570340.

Flipping heck, wrong company?  Good spot!

Checking the list of AOS Members this morning, only Mr Wilkins's new company-Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd-is listed as an AOS member; his old "Walton Wilkins t/a Premier Parking Logistics" business seems to have disappeared.

95Rollers

Castle said:

Coupon-mad said:

Castle said:

Coupon-mad said:

The sign is bent round the pole!   Don't use your close-up pic of the straight sign.

Actually, the close-up pic of the straight sign, (5th photo down), shows the name of Mr Wilkins's new company-Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd-Company number 10570340.

Flipping heck, wrong company?  Good spot!

Checking the list of AOS Members this morning, only Mr Wilkins's new company-Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd-is listed as an AOS member; his old "Walton Wilkins t/a Premier Parking Logistics" business seems to have disappeared.

The website for PPL is still live, but I cannot find any mention of belonging to the IPC or BPA on there. 

I would include the BPA CoP policy regarding Grace Periods into my WS. The BPA state that motorists get 10 minutes to park, read T&Cs, signs and pay- whereas the IPC which Walt was a membervof that time had an unspecified "reasonable" period. So I would use both these to your advantages as its the Judge who decides what is "reasonable" and I'd suggest the fact that it took you less to do all this than what the ATA codes of practice is reasonable!  See for yourself and screenshot it before it goes!

https://premierparkinglogistics.com/appeals

You may get asked why you didn't appeal in court.  I would exhibit a Screenshot of the Appeals page on their website. Its littered with terms such as "prosecuting evidence" and that they are never wrong and appealing or standing up to them is "waste of time and money". Its a page of narcissistic passive aggressive gaslighting waffle!!! It's also worth mentioning that the IAS ("Independent" Appeals Service) is NOT Independent because it is OWNED by the same people who own IPC (and Gladstones Solicitors) where they only a uphold 4% of motorists challenges ,because their USP is their dice are loaded to favour and reward their greedy clients (I.e Excel and Walton etc). I was asked this in court and the Legal Rep couldn't argue this and the Judge was satisfied with that answer. 

Snakes_Belly

"It's also worth mentioning that the IAS ("Independent" Appeals Service) is NOT Independent because it is OWNED by the same people who own IPC (and Gladstones Solicitors) where they only a uphold 4% of motorists challenges ,because their USP is their dice are loaded to favour and reward their greedy clients (I.e Excel and Walton etc). I was asked this in court and the Legal Rep couldn't argue this and the Judge was satisfied with that answer."

I used the Hansard quote in my defence with regard to the IAS. "Its like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank". 

It sounds from PPL's website that Walton Wilkins cage has been rattled in losing quite a few cases.   

Teemo

According to the signs at the car park it has the IPC logo on there.
I have been reading the IPC code of practice regarding test size of signs, please find attached picture where it says:

” Text Size

The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and

should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the

Motorist in relation to the sign.”

Regarding the bent sign that is positioned very high up, the text size is inadequate, it is unreasonable to assume that someone can read the text of that size sitting from their car whilst driving into the car park. Even myself when standing below the sign it is already difficult to read, as a driver sitting down I doubt anyone would be able to read the text on that sign.

I would like to thank everyone who has taken their time out of their day to read and help me regarding this. Hopefully when I have some time off this bank holiday I can begin to write my defence and share it once completed.

I have also taken a screenshot of PPL’s website as suggested above.

I was looking at the images I received from the SAR again today and found a pdf file I had missed previously (too busy looking at photos). It was the NTK they had sent to me however it was sent to my previous address. Could I say that because of this I did not have a chance to appeal? 

95Rollers

@Teemo said:

It was the NTK they had sent to me however it was sent to my previous address. Could I say that because of this I did not have a chance to appeal? 

Yes you could mention that. What was the timescale between your address changing after the alleged contravention?  

Appealing would of been a waste of time anyway.  But you couldn't even appeal anyway if you hadn't received it. Appeals aren't independent nor legally binding on the motorists. Many Appeals are found in the Parking firms favour, but the motorist wins in court because most judges can see their scam for what it is! 

You have hit the nail oh the head regarding the signs!

This PPL case made National Press. The lady Defendant (Sarah Teng) commented on PPL's poor signage and predatory tactics!  Probably worth drawing references to this at WS.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/16075144/mum-wins-court-battle-sneaky-parking-firm/amp/

houndsoflove

PPL are at it again.  That sign is printed on corrugated plastic same as the one on in the car park I received a ticket, although it was in Sandwell.

More than happy to help with a witness statement although would need some guidance as to what should be included.

it is a shame there isn’t a fault sign on the machine as that would have helped.  In my case the DDJ made comment about why companies such as PPL don’t engage with defendant about paying the required parking fee before starting court proceedings and wasting court time.  You could offer to pay that fee now, they will reject, but it will show that you have tried to avoid a court hearing, especially if you haven’t appealed.  I will caveat that with saying up that might not be the right thing to do and others more experienced will be along to correct the record.

one final point, the evidence pack from PPL and produced by DBL we be littered with errors so read that fully.

Good luck.

Snakes_Belly

I have always thought that payment for parking should be like the tolls where you have so long to pay after the event. 

Snakes_Belly

If you do decided to send the parking tariff I would send a cheque. Don't give your banking details or pay via their payment platform.  

Fruitcake

I wouldn't suggest sending any payment to the PPC as it could be construed as being a payment towards the PCN. If payment was made on the day to park, it would go to the landowner. Any offer to make subsequent payment should be to the landowner.

Snakes_Belly

I can see where Hounds is coming from as some judges think that the driver should attempt to make payment of the tariff if unable to do so. As many of you are aware the judge in my hearing did order me to make the payment of the tariff.

As we all know they are never likely to accept this and to use their online platform may be dangerous as they may take the full amount of the claim. Ditto if you give them your banking details. 

The only way around this is to send a cheque and say that it is specifically in respect of the parking tariff on the day in question. It does humour some judges.