PPS - dark car park

CM, I’ve had another look at your draft for Phoenixfreespirit today (Phoenixfreespirit, if you read this I really feel for you, having been through similar life circumstances myself). I’m not sure exactly which points I can use as the situation is so different to mine. I’m trained in researching medical literature and scientific writing, and the legal-speak is still like a foreign language to me! I can just imagine how distressing this kind of thing is for people who are not used to formal English. If I’m missing anything glaring, please do let me know!

I’m thinking some of the following points might be food for thought in my case:

The Claimant further breached the BPA rules (which were deemed 'effectively regulatory' by the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 - 'the Beavis case') by issuing a predatory PCN within minutes, failing to place clear signs with adequate notice of the parking charge, and in further breach, the Claimant then sent the Registered Keeper a hybrid Notice to Keeper which attempted to extort a disallowed sum, namely £130, contrary to both the BPA CoP and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA 2012').

If the driver of my vehicle did stray into the PPS car park, it would have been to briefly pop into the shop next door. There are only a few bays in the shop car park and they could have been occupied. The PPS gate sign (if one actually saw it, which is doubtful after dark and with it angled away from approaching vehicles), states that ‘All vehicles must pay and display or have a valid permit’. The BPA CoP states that ‘Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made’. Interestingly, it still has a BPA logo too, but I’m sure I saw on another thread that PPS are no longer a member? There’s a sign saying ‘open 24 hours’ but nothing to indicate whether charges apply at all times.

6. Even if the Court is minded to believe a contract was formed by the 2014 signs, the POFA 2012 does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. That sum cannot have exceeded the BPA CoP ceiling of £100 and the Claimant cannot recover additional charges and their Notice to Keeper document failed on all counts. The Defendant cannot be held liable for any sum at all.

The only bit of paperwork I kept from 2015 is the PCN which is demanding £100. That’s the bit with the dark photos. I’m not sure if that’s the same as a NTK – it has the ‘reasonable cause’ spiel on it.

Anyway, I got the Acknowledgement done today using the method suggested by KeithP, and PPS now have another SAR on their desk. Thanks again to all who have advised so far.

CM, your mastery of words is spectacular!

Hmm, not sure whether the NTK complies strictly with POFA. Mine is a little different to one or two that I’ve seen on other threads. It contains the following info:

Parking Charge Notice: £100
PCN Number XXX
Vehicle Registration Number XXX
Vehicle Make XXX
Place of Contravention XXX
Issue Reason: No Valid Ticket or Permit Displayed
Date of Contravention XXX
Date of Letter XXX
Payment Tel No: (PPS number)

IMPORTANT: Before sending payment you are advised to read the Notes for Guidance (see reverse). Failure to pay the parking charge within 28 days of receiving it could lead to legal proceedings being issued.

2 photos (dark, date stamped less than one minute apart)

You have been sent this Notice because we have been informed that you were the keeper, driver or hirer of Vehicle Registration Number XXX on (date 6 weeks and 5 days prior to NTK). If we are writing to you as the keeper it is because we do not have both the drivers name and address. On that date, the vehicle was observed to have contravened the parking regulations as set down and displayed in the car park. The vehicle was served with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or one was presented by post, which allowed 14 days for the payment at the reduced rate otherwise the full Parking Charge became due. Either no payment has been received, or a partial payment received which has been insufficient to clear the Parking Charge. Therefore this charge needs to be paid.

The amount you will need to pay by XXX is £100

If payment is made in accordance with the directions above, proceedings will not be taken and the drivers’ liability will be discharged, only payment in full will prevent us taking further action.

ALL APPEALS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING (PPS address and email address)
All correspondence must include your name, a serviceable UK postal address, the name and address of the driver (if different), the vehicle registration number, PCN number and any evidence which may support your position. All appeals are genuinely reviewed and the decision to accept or reject an appeal is based on the evidence supplied. Premier Parking Solutions Ltd will not enter into multiple appeals processes. All cases are placed on hold upon the receipt of a written appeal.

Keeper Details
Your details may have been provided by the DVLA under the reasonable cause criteria, as you were the registered keeper of the vehicle above, on the date it was parked in breach of the posted terms and conditions of a private car park. Should you feel that this data has been obtained or used inappropriately, your complaint can be notified to the DVLA (website address) and the Information Commissioner (website address).

Data Protection
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd and its agents will process your information for the operation of their parking enforcement scheme. Processing may include the use of cameras to record data. Your information may be disclosed to, or requested from, the DVLA. Records are made available to them thus ensuring the DVLA is satisfied that all data is expediated in the manner agreed and to ensure security of storage and access so as to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Data may be shared with third parties in relation to the issue of a parking charge in order to assist with a parking charge appeal. Premier Parking Solutions Ltd may also disclose data to a third party on the instigation of legal proceedings.

Valley Enforcement is a trading name of Premier Parking Solutions Ltd

(2 BPA logos and the PPS registration number and VAT number)

Umkomaas, yes they are correct. Great spot, I just haven't had time to check the minutiae and you're all so much more familiar with the law than I am!

Umkomaas wrote: »

But you're going to have to get your head around the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order for you to be able to argue this in your defence, and ultimately articulate in front of the Judge.

It is a technical point, very useful to the keeper if he/she was definitely not the driver on the day (and can prove that), but if not, while it can still be argued, the keeper is vulnerable to a short question from the Judge - 'Well, were you the driver on the day, or not?'.

Thanks for the clarification. I've only had a quick read of the bit in PoFA that relates to what they are supposed to do and when. Hopefully this weekend I will have time to study it in more detail.

I have received a response to the SAR. Photographs from different angles to the ones on the NTK confirm that the spotlight was on and that my vehicle was in the car park. They also show that a sign barely catches a distant glow from the light and it would be a stretch to imagine that it is legible under those conditions. The other photos of signs were taken in broad daylight and weeks earlier. None of them show the actual parking tariff. The gate sign wording is exactly as I described previously, but of course they have taken the photo head-on and it is actually impossible to drive in at that angle!

There was definitely a packet on the windscreen. I now have photos to prove it! Just realised, as I blanked out dates, I should have said 'The amount you will need to pay by (2 weeks after the date of this letter) is £100'. Sorry about that.