PPS ticket

The issue with the site in question is during rush hour your could be stuck Half on the pavement half in the site where it records your exit photo.

A trick I have seen used is cover your rear plate while leaving, this means they never record an exit and it confuses there system.

My letter to the landowner claiming that PPS have failed to disengage the penalty rule in a pay and display carpark etc.

They have also spoken to PPC who provided details of my appeal is that not a data protection issue?

They have not answer questions about the penalty rule or their published grace period on the site website of 15 mins when PPS claim 10.

"Thank you for your letter dated April 2018.

We confirm that we have agreed that Premier Parking Solutions Limited (PPS) will manage our car park at the Cooper Associates County Ground.

We understand that PPS has written to you following your unsuccessful appeal with the company direct and has suggested that you appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, if you are still unhappy with the PCN issued to you. We are not part of this process and cannot comment further.

PPS has assured us that its processes are robust, as it is an accredited operator of the IPC and a member of the BPA. In addition, PPS is regularly audited by the DVLA to ensure Keeper information is correctly used."

I asked for a copy of the agreement which they have not done or answered the point?

The other issue is their photos show the car half on site and have on public highway, how can they start the parking time from that!

my draft

Sarah,

WITHOUT PREDJUDICE

Unfortunately, you appear to misunderstand what I have written as this was not an appeal of the Parking Charge Notice.

Differing Grace Periods

You also appear to have failed to answer or respond to a number of points I have raised not least of all the discrepancy in the published grace period on your website vs what Premier Parking Solutions Ltd have reported in their response to me. Since PPS have shared information with your as regards my correspondence with them I have attached a copy of their response. You should also be aware that both the BPA and IPC are just trade bodies funded by the parking companies themselves. I would urge you to get independent advice from another source not the parking company you have contracted with as they are hardly going to admit to their own unfair practices or floors in their case against the driver of my
vehicle.

As you have not attached a copy of your contract highlighting the agreed grace period I assume you accept that PPS have incorrectly reported 10 minutes? Or the 15 minutes in your website is incorrect and misleading?

DVLA KADOE Contract

The DVLA have been happy to accept the money from these companies only requiring membership of one of the trade bodies in order to qualify to request and pay for Registered Keeper information. This issue has been debated in Parliament in February of this year and MPs agreed that the DVLA should not be selling private individuals data to companies without proper regulation. Membership of a trade union or trade club should not be all the DVLA requires to sell companies your or my private information would you not agree?


How this PCN is fair and proportionate?

In the case of my vehicle the allege overstay is 76 minutes if the ANPR data is to be believed. NOTWITHSTANDING the photos show the vehicle partially outside your boundary and not 'parked'

I can assure you as your carpark is a pay and display with a charge of £1.70 for 2 hours parking that claiming £100 is a not a genuine pre-estimate loss and therefore is almost certain to fail in a court of law due it being regarded as a 'penalty'. As you are probably aware ONLY local authorities and government agencies can impose 'penalty charges' hence PPS using the term 'Parking Charge Notice'. As I pointed out a reasonable charge would be say £25 for administration costs and £1.70 for two hours parking (76 minutes not considering a grace period) so the £60 or £100 they are requesting is quite laughable and disproportionate to the allege overstay would you not agree?

I would urge you to review your contract with them and your organisation's decision to use a company of ex-clampers that I believe have been named and shamed in The House of Commons for their shoddy practices. Also, the questionable practice of ANPR system which is this case starts a parking session while your vehicle is not even fully within the site boundary.

I would also point out that Parliament is aware that this unregulated industry cannot be left to regulate itself and are finally taking action to pass reforms and regulation this year. I would you direct to a Parliamentary debate from 02.02.18 where all MPs in the House were unanimous in agreeing:

''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse;''

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41



In light of the information I have brought to your attention why are you not exercising your right to cancel a PCN, as per your contract with this rogue parking company as they work for your organisation not the other way around.

Further Complaint- A complaint brought to your organisation is and can be separate to any action of communication between a person and a private parking company of ex-rogue clampers.

I will be escalating my complaint and will NOT be using the kangaroo court (IAS). I would urge you to alert your top Management to this horrendous issue with their contractor not offering anything like an INDEPENDENT appeal, since it is run by their own Trade Body and gives reportedly biased (anti-consumer) decisions from an anonymous person:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/is-independent-appeal-service-kangaroo.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/ipc-kangaroo-court-defies-government.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/ipc-kangaroo-court-strikes-again.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/independent-parking-committee-kangaroo.html

The above links are not to some random blogger. The Parking Prankster has reported about this issue for many years and is on the BBC's Watchdog in a 'dodgy practices' report about parking firms tomorrow night (18/04/18) so I believe them a credible source for information on the Private Parking Industry:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/parking-prankster-on-watchdog.html


I look forward to your careful and considered response after reviewing the above information and not just listening to your private parking contractor.