Premier Park PCN - Letter of claim received

K.I.T.T. · 9 September 2018 at 11:03PM

Despite my low post count, I consider myself somewhat clued up on these matters. Somewhat being the operative word

I've successfully challenged a Council PCN previously and was aware of how PPCs operate, prior to PoFA / POPLA. As such, I am about to pop my POPLA appeal cherry... :kisses2:

I have read the newbie posts. No golden tickets in this one.

As the RK of a particular vehicle, I appealed a PCN concerning an alleged contravention, received an 'invite' to name the driver and ignored and as of the 30th of August, have a POPLA code.

Premier Park have not been made aware of who the driver was. They are aware that I am the RK. I have not confirmed who the driver was.

I like to think I have done my homework on this one - it's an interesting situation. I'll also be attempting to use the ANPR ICO point that, as far as I'm aware, is untested.

Anyway, below is a link to my first draft. This should hopefully give a background. The pay and display ticket has been intentionally 'fettled' with, although for some readers of Pepipoo, you may recognise the 'case' that this is related to.

hxxps://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1I0Arg3r7NuL_nP6QNtW0SrbBl2ovW2xQoyk6SzykI/edit?usp=sharing

Please change xx to ss in the link.

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Many thanks!

Redx · 9 September 2018 at 11:08PM

K.I.T.T. wrote: »

Premier Park have not been made aware of who the driver was. They are aware that I am the RK. I have not confirmed who the driver was.

I have fixed that sentence for you, suggest you do the same

K.I.T.T. · 9 September 2018 at 11:14PM

Redx wrote: »

I have fixed that sentence for you, suggest you do the same

Duly noted - thanks

Coupon-mad · 9 September 2018 at 11:37PM

I didn't see any wording to clarify that there is (it seems?) no fence/boundary dividing the two car parks, and that cars can pass and repass between the two, and that the crux of the case is not that the driver bought a ticket at the wrong machine (because they didn't, they parked in the Blackburn railway car park and the operator is put to strict photo proof otherwise).

K.I.T.T. · 9 September 2018 at 11:53PM

Coupon-mad, you are indeed correct. There is no physical boundary that separates the two car parks. Should the appeal be amended to reflect this?

The car park managed by the PPC does not require one to display a ticket, however, does have a limit of four hours, unless one obtains an exemption somehow (?).

Blackburn station car park, subject to railway byelaws is accessed via the above, privately managed, car park. This car park does require a pay and display ticket, which had been purchased and displayed.

Umkomaas · 10 September 2018 at 7:49AM

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L1I0Arg3r7NuL_nP6QNtW0SrbBl2ovW2xQoyk6SzykI/mobilebasic

With the addition of what Coupon-mad says, your written appeal is clear, nicely laid out with good photos and looks to have made your case well.

There's just one sentence in the appeal that maybe you should have another look at, it isn't clear to me exactly what you are saying in it.

There is consistent not only throughout the car park, as demonstrated in Figure 6, but also upon entering The Peel Centre, as demonstrated in Figure 7.

K.I.T.T. · 10 September 2018 at 3:24PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

With the addition of what Coupon-mad says, your written appeal is clear, nicely laid out with good photos and looks to have made your case well.

There's just one sentence in the appeal that maybe you should have another look at, it isn't clear to me exactly what you are saying in it.

There is consistent not only throughout the car park, as demonstrated in Figure 6, but also upon entering The Peel Centre, as demonstrated in Figure 7.

Thanks Umkomaas, the sentence highlighted was a typo. A textbook example of the metaphor 'burning the midnight oil'. "There" should be "This". This has been corrected this in v3.

v3 below, please replace xx with tt:
hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDE_XtyHoV3zf-dIvdrAm-sjA0Cu-kYs/view

I have also paraphrased what Coupon-mad said, which is on page 4.

What I shall say, in the interest of being up front, is that there is no other entrance to the station car park other than via Mayson Street and driving through the PPC managed car park. However, as established from the pictures, there is a sign present when exiting the station car park, and in the words of the sign, "entering" the managed car park. I have chosen not to comment about any signs at any other entrance. This concerns point 2 in my appeal.

The only other thing that I am considering is amending (adding to) the wording on page 8, ie 'figure 6 on page 9' and 'figure 7 on page 10'.

Also, the appeal draws heavily from one complied by SalomonAssassin, here: hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74168581&postcount=30 Consider this a citation

Le_Kirk · 10 September 2018 at 3:28PM

Here is your link made live: -

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDE_XtyHoV3zf-dIvdrAm-sjA0Cu-kYs/view

You might want to amend the split infinitive in your first sentence!

K.I.T.T. · 11 September 2018 at 4:22PM

v4, please replace xx with tt:

hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rnev7ma8L9oWbnCi7apaFKE9_AHYBp_A/view?usp=sharing

Final two paragraphs on page 8 merged, and the wording changed to remove any implication that "authority" does exist. Figure 7 renamed (originally went from figure 6 to figure 8 - 7 omitted by mistake).

Some minor formatting amended, which isn't worth mentioning.

Not sure what to say as per Le_Kirk's earlier comment as to the first sentence, but am open to suggestion

I intentionally left this the same as per a previous POPLA appeal (different PPC): hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74168581&postcount=30

As long as there's nothing else that is glaringly wrong, I am tempted to submit, although I do have another two weeks or so.

The main point of the appeal is point 1; the others whilst (IMO) valid, are thrown in for good measure.

K.I.T.T. · 13 September 2018 at 1:15PM

The rejection letter (the one with the POPLA code) states: "Please be advised that payments made for Blackburn Station are not valid in this car park. For future visits, we would advise parking in the location you have paid for to ensure no further PCN's are issued for this reason." Premier Park are yet to supply any evidence to suggest the car was indeed parked at the location they manage Indeed, the only images PP have appear to be of the vehicle entering and leaving at entrance 1.

As such, the PCN is being challenged on the basis that the vehicle was not parked on relevant land, nor was a contract entered into, point number one, however, points 2, 3 and 4 are relevant and applicable.

I have found a few points that would be relevant if the vehicle was parked on relevant land (which is being refuted in point 1).

Looking at the wording on the signs (figure 2, page 3)

"Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry". One could argue that is in contravention of the 10 minute grace periods.
The PCN lists the entry and exit times, however the duration is simply calculated as exit time minus entry time, which has been proven to not be the correct way of determining the duration of parking. This also contradicts what the sign states, as per the above bullet point.

These two points have just been summarised - they can be expanded upon if required. So, would it be relevant to include these, or should the appeal focus on the four points in v4?

K.I.T.T. · 17 September 2018 at 4:39PM

Whilst I'm hesitant to bump this, the appeal does need submitting the the next week or so; I'd be keen to hear any thoughts regarding v4 and the points raised in my previous post

Premier Park PCN - Letter of claim received

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free