Premier Park Credit Card Fee

NBy · 4 March 2018 at 3:02PM

Just a couple of quick queries - I have a PCN from Premier from an ANPR and unfortunately I didnt read these pages before I did my initial appeal so referred to we but I am just the keeper and certainly wasn't the driver.

I have my POPLA code and will be using your template to appeal through them but;
1) will having said we prejudice my appeal - I have checked I definitely said we all through - I didnt identify the driver
2) can I email Premier for the photos/signage/contract now as I didnt ask for them in my appeal to them?

Also it may be a long shot but can the fact that they have asked for a credit/debit card fee on both the original PCN and the appeal response invalidate the request - payment by cheque/postal order is fee free and surely this contravenes the recent EU directive (13 Jan). The alleged 'offence' took place on 10 February and the appeal response is dated 28 Feb so plenty of time for them to put their house in order.

Any help appreciated.

KeithP · 4 March 2018 at 3:54PM

You have lost nothing by using the word 'we'.
Continue to avoid giving any clues to the driver's identity.

You can ask for their photos if you like.

Again, mention the CC fe issue if you like.

Personally, I would forget all those three points.

I would continue with your plan by creating a PoPLA appeal based on the many points detailed in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Fruitcake · 4 March 2018 at 4:01PM

You should be able to check photos on their web site using the PCN number. I take it they weren't included on the NTK.

Otherwise you could ask for their photo evidence and they should provide it. You can ask for the contract but I doubt if they will supply it.

You need to get your own pictures of signs, especially if they are hidden, damaged, high up, in small font, and their relation to where the car was allegedly parked, etcetera as well as the entrance.

Because you used "we" in your initial appeal you can use any POFA failures on the NTK as you have not identified the driver.

The inclusion of CC fees isn't a show stopper for them unfortunately, but you can include it as an appeal point anyway. Whilst they may not have got round to changing signs yet, they should have altered the NTK wording before they sent it out. The same applies to prohibited premium rate 0844/0845 'phone numbers.

Please also complain to the landowner and your MP.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''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; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to the landowner and your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if they want further information about this scam.

NBy · 4 March 2018 at 4:58PM

Fruitcake
I have just been out and taken photos and the sign at the entrance is parallel to the entrance and on the right so difficult to see when entering from the left, particularly when traffic/pedestrian are added into the mix. The reverse that you might see once parked or when exiting has been covered over with a screwed on white plastic sheet totally obscuring any warnings!

Also there are no signs on the wall (c 100ft length) that the driver allegedly parked against.

The only signs I could see today were two fixed above 5'10" (my husband stood below as a measure) and were in very small font on the wall to the building across the car park - attached to a vehicles parked at owners risk sign.

This is the only one that mentions a £100 fee. Is there a maximum height they can be placed at bearing in mind the average height for a woman would be way lower than this and anyone in a wheelchair would have no chance?

The_Slithy_Tove · 4 March 2018 at 5:18PM

NBy wrote: »

Is there a maximum height they can be placed

Not explicitly, but if you can't read them, then there can be no contract. I have seen plenty of signs that are 7 feet or more up a pole, and written in pretty small font, so impossible to read, even when right under the sign.

NBy · 4 March 2018 at 7:38PM

Sorry - just another query.I'm being totally thick but struggling with the dates for the appeal letter.

PCN dated Tuesday 20 Feb so date of receipt counted as 23 Feb ie issue date plus 2 days.

So 28 days under statute takes me to 22 March and they can 'enforce' from 23 March?

Premier park state 29 days from 20 Feb so excluding date of issue takes us to 21 March ie a day earlier.

Is that right?

The_Deep · 5 March 2018 at 9:32AM

As fruitcake says. Parliament are breathing dowm their necks.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas

nosferatu1001 · 5 March 2018 at 1:37PM

PP do NOT use the correct wording to hold a keeper liable, as it must be 28 days after the notice is given, NOT 29 days from issue - those are two differing periods of time. Sadly POPLA are so incompetent they dont understand this differenc e- professional negligence, given it has been explained to them in words of one syllable multiple times now"!

The CC charge does not "invalidate" this. its an invoice. Same as any other civil piece of paper, it is only valid if a) you treat it as valid or b) a court deems it is

However, given charing fees is not allowed, it is a breach trading standards may be interested in.

NBy · 4 April 2018 at 7:00PM

Just as an update:

I submitted my appeal 22 March with the standard (ish) letter covering the following issues:
1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability can be established.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge
3. Inadequate and unclear signage
4. Premier Park has a lack of standing or authority from the landowner to issue tickets and pursue charges in their own name at court.
5. The Notice to Keeper includes reference to unlawful fees.
6. The Notice to Keeper includes photographs which are not date and time stamped and appear to have been digitally enhanced.
7. The alleged offence is for entry/parking for 16 minutes from 14.50 to 15.06 but liability is said to have been established at 15.06

As well as doing that I emailed my MP-still not heard from him!!, wrote to the freeholder to get them to put pressure on the lessee and contacted trading standards about the credit card fee.

Not sure which bit worked, but today I was advised by POPLA that Premier Park didn't want to contest the appeal so I won!!

Thanks to everyone that has posted previously that I cribbed from and advice provided.

Coupon-mad · 4 April 2018 at 7:03PM

Hooray, well done you!

Umkomaas · 4 April 2018 at 8:47PM

Not sure which bit worked, but today I was advised by POPLA that Premier Park didn't want to contest the appeal so I won!!

Great news, particularly as Premier Parking have been having a bit of a charmed life at POPLA, with a disproportionate success rate when compared to other PPCs, yet seemingly producing nothing special in their POPLA evidence.

Premier Park Credit Card Fee

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

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