"Premier Park" Parking Charge Notice

JohnB47

Just received this today (29/8/25) and the letter is dated 22/08/25.

It says I need to pay a reduced fee of £60 for "Whole Period of Parking Not Paid For".

However, I did buy a ticket - I paid £1 for one hour and returned within the hour (timing confirmed in the letter from Premier Park).

I no longer have the parking ticket but I do see the payment on my credit card statement.

I went back to the car park today (it's not too far away) and checked and the £1 payment was correct for one hour but one thing I did notice was the statement "Minimum Card Payment £3" which I hadn't noticed before.

Surely that's not what they're fining me for? They take payment and give me a ticket and then fine me because I should have paid £3 for 4 hours parking instead of £1 for one hour?

If that's the case, why do their machines not just refuse to take credit card payment under £3 and tell you that on the screen?

One other thing - there are two machines on that site, side by side together. I used the right hand side one first, went all the way through entering my car reg. etc and offered up my card when requested (and held it against the reader for a long time) but nothing happened - it seemed to just lock up. So I pressed the red X button and still nothing happened. So I went through the same procedure on the left hand machine, which gave me a ticket and I put it on the dash - you can see it there on the photo they supplied of me leaving the car park.

Could the right hand machine have logged me as staying but not paying?

Thanks for any advice.

Gr1pr

The pcn will state the contravention,  show us a properly redacted picture of the front of the pcn,  hiding personal information and reference numbers and the VRM details too,  so no private information 

Leave the dates and times showing 

JohnB47

Thanks. Here it is, attached...

Gr1pr

So 58 minutes on site, payment was made by card,  you say for 60 minutes 

I would suggest that we need to see pictures of the signage on that private property to try to understand what the alleged breach was. Nothing is mentioned regarding non payment 

Ps, the reference number is on show at the bottom 

JohnB47

Gr1pr said:

So 58 minutes on site, payment was made by card,  you say for 60 minutes 

I would suggest that we need to see pictures of the signage on that private property to try to understand what the alleged breach was 

Ps, the reference number is on show at the bottom 

I've replaced the image with ref removed, thanks.

I'll supply a picture of the signage later - a bit busy at the mo.

Gr1pr

Yep, no rush,  but I am as mystified as you 

JohnB47

Here you go. As I said, the only thing I'm worried about is that Minimum Card Payment notice. That's the only thing that I may have done 'wrong' but why was a ticket issued?

JohnB47

And here are two redacted screenshots of my Credit Card Statement. The second one is what's shown when I click on the plus symbol against the payment to Premier Park.

Car1980

That's irrelevant because the money has been taken.

The only think I can think of is that there was a keying error and they think you didn't pay. But they've scuppered their chances of getting a free £100 in that case because the contractual breach they are claiming is not that.

No harm in "appealing" for this one I would say, but don't say who was driving obviously.

JohnB47

Thanks.

So you're saying it can't be that I made a keying error? Meaning that, if they thought that, they would claim that  I had made no payment at all?

So if it isn't the minimum charge thing, what can the problem actually be? Seems clear cut to me.

One thing - why would I not mention that I was driving? They want me to fill in an online form, so is it not likely that they'll insist that I answer a question about that?

Thanks again.

Car1980

Unless they are just accusing people of not paying to avoid the £20 keying error charge they obliged to offer. 

You can email them: 

https://www.premierpark.co.uk/appeals

Keep them guessing over driver ID because it gives you more flexibility and they sometimes make errors regarding the POF Act.