Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • PWhite_WRC
    • By PWhite_WRC 12th Oct 17, 8:24 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Premier Park Torquay Marina Car Park POPLA Fail
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:24 PM
    Premier Park Torquay Marina Car Park POPLA Fail 12th Oct 17 at 8:24 PM

    Premier Park sent me an NTK letter in July for what they described as a 'parking session expired or unpaid'. Knowing, myself, that I had paid and taking into account the times and images they provided, I believed they were trying to fine me for going 5 minuets over the allocated time for which I had paid. I did some research, and, using this forum, I found a members' letter template, which I used to appeal the fine. My grounds for appeal included the fact that they used ANPR to record the times and not the actual times I had parked for; and the NTK requirements; and the operator's authority to make a claim against me in the first place. I sent the letter (attached below) to POPLA, and Premier replied with their evidence. In actuality, they are making a claim based on non-payment. They provided a screen shot of all the vehicles that had entered at or around the time I drove past the ANPR. On the list, you can see an entry for "02" which is what I entered on the pay kiosk; however, it turns out I should have entered my entire number plate. I responded to POPLA explaining that I had paid and that the '02' on Premier Park's list was my entry. POPLA rejected my appeal on all points made.

    Premier has now sent me a letter asking for the £100 or they will seek to recover 'via our Debt Recovery Service and may then commence court action'.

    So I've got a few questions to ask you guys please: What can I do now? I read a post about sending a letter directly to Premier parking ask them to reconsider. Surely if they looked at their CCTV they could see me making payment at the exact time the '02' entry was made? What happens if I just ignore this letter, how likely will it go to court?

    Thanks for taking the time to read this and for any advice you can give.


    Dear Sirs


    I, as Registered Keeper of vehicle XX02 XXX, hereby appeal against the above PCN for the reasons set out below:
    A ticket was purchased for this vehicle for 2 hours parking. The times stated in this operators PCN show the vehicle entering the car park at 11:52 and leaving at 13:57 and therefore has the total time recorded as two hours and five minutes. However these times are from ANPR camera images (which the car park signs do not mention are in use, as in accordance with the BPA CoP 21.1) and NOT from the time when the ticket was actually purchased from the on site pay and display machine. The operator’s own signs actually states ‘Parking period commences 5 minutes after entry’ (please see enclosed photos) so just based on their “own rules” the vehicle has complied and therefore hasn’t exceeded the parking session. BPA’s CoP 13.2 & 30.2 actually states that a grace period of ATLEAST 10 minutes should be applied.
    After my initial appeal to the operator explaining the above, they now claim there is ‘no record of a payment or permit for the vehicle’, yet have provided no evidence to support this accusation such as photographic images of the vehicles dashboard/windscreen area, the oblivious reason for this being that a ticket was purchased and would have been on display if they had.
    Please see points outlined below for other condition's the operator has failed to adhered too or have not followed correctly;
    The Operator’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012

    In order to rely upon POFA 2012 to invoke Keeper liability the Operator had to deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully met all of POFA 2012’s strict requirements. I set out below a non-exhaustive list of reasons why the Operator’s Notice to Keeper failed to do so.

    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice related. Instead, the notice merely specifies the times which the Operator alleges that the vehicle entered and exited the car park.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (b), the Notice to Keeper did not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para 9 (2) (e), the Notice to Keeper did not state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.
    • Contrary to the requirements of Sch.4 Para (2) (h), the Notice to Keeper did not identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.

    The Operator has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers

    I do not believe that the Operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, the Operator must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

    I contend that the Operator merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require the Operator to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits the Operator to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name. For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).

    Signs not compliant with BPA Code of Practice

    BPA Code of Practice section 21.1 states that “Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the
    data captured by ANPR cameras for.” Please refer to the sign photographed in the attachment. It makes no specific reference to ANPR being used within the car park.

    Additionally section 18.7 states “If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.” The number on the sign is an 0871 number which is not a basic rate number.

    Section 18.3 states that “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The sign illustrated has extremely small text in bold below the ‘Penalty Charge Notice’ section and this is not legible or easy to read.
    Section 13.2 & 30.2States if the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to leave the car park after the parking event has ended, before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    Signs do not set out a contract

    The sign fails to state that it sets out a contract between anyone, as such no contract was ever formed. Any PCN issued on the basis of this sign is unenforceable.

    The sign states that “If you enter or park on this land contravening the above terms & conditions, you are agreeing to pay:” There is no mention on the sign of payment being one of the terms and conditions.

    Charge is disproportionate to the actual loss incurred

    The parking charge is grossly disproportionate to the loss incurred by the company and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I require the company to supply full details of the loss incurred to justify the charge. Please note that the ParkingEye vs Beavis ruling does not apply in this case as the car park models are different. In ParkingEye vs Beavis the car park was limited to 2 hours on a retail park to deter people from staying for too long, in this case there is no such restriction.

    Due to the reasons listed above, I believe the PCN is unenforceable and as such should be cancelled.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 8:33 PM
    • 18,365 Posts
    • 23,265 Thanks
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:33 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:33 PM
    they dont use CCTV, so that wont wash , the BPA AOS will tell you what they are allowed to use , including ANPR

    the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread tells you all about this , including the fact that there is no "next step" (despite people always looking for one)

    if they decide to issue an LBC or an MCOL within 6 years , come back

    otherwise , its pay in full , or IGNORE , we favour the latter , with the caveats about an LBC or an MCOL

    yes it may go to court, where a judge may well take a different view about their useless machines and VRM entry etc

    plus there is the issue about clause #13 of the BPA CoP, coming into play , ie:- GRACE PERIODS

    Last edited by Redx; 12-10-2017 at 8:35 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • 35,912 Posts
    • 20,185 Thanks
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    Go to the newbies faq thread and learn about the game you are caught up in

    It describes the stages these things all go through

    Don't contact the ppc!

    You are in the debt collector stage - ignore them

    Come back if you get a court claim
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    • 7,562 Posts
    • 10,063 Thanks
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:04 PM
    PWhite_WRC .... It is safe to say that POPLA who are
    supposed to be independent are employing assessors
    who are now clueless and clearly have no understanding

    But hey, POPLA is simply a disgrace and frankly no longer
    fit for purpose


    So Premier are going to let loose their dogs

    These "dogs" go under the name of Debt Collectors and
    within the great parking scam they have no authority
    or any clout whatsoever.

    They send out letters that are only fit for the rubbish bin.
    They makes threats WHICH ARE FAKE

    Ignore all this rubbish. IT REALLY IS RUBBISH

    If Premier want to go in front of a judge, more fool them
    with such a stupid claim

    There are idiot Solicitors who skim off the scam and if you hear
    from them, you come back here

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 17, 9:10 PM
    • 7,716 Posts
    • 7,460 Thanks
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:10 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:10 PM
    In the meantime Paul, if your forum username is your real name, it would be a good idea to get it changed to something more anonymous.

    To do that, hit the report button at the bottom of your post and ask the MSE Forum Team to help you.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 13th Oct 17, 8:48 AM
    • 9,514 Posts
    • 9,274 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 13th Oct 17, 8:48 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Oct 17, 8:48 AM
    If it did go to court and you told the judge you had paid the judge has to make a decision, who is telling the truth, your good-self, or a low life scammer.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,830Posts Today

6,652Users online

Martin's Twitter