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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • seanuk909
    • By seanuk909 11th May 18, 4:12 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 1Thanks
    seanuk909
    PremierPark PCN for not paying 用aid, but no longer have receipt
    • #1
    • 11th May 18, 4:12 PM
    PremierPark PCN for not paying 用aid, but no longer have receipt 11th May 18 at 4:12 PM
    I've read the Newbies FAQs but looks likes it all for overstaying.

    the parking was paid, but the receipt wasn't kept

    probably miss-keyed reg number

    appealed to PP and they rejected so have POPLA code. Do I follow the same process?
    Last edited by seanuk909; 11-05-2018 at 4:38 PM.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th May 18, 4:28 PM
    • 37,874 Posts
    • 22,004 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 4:28 PM
    • #2
    • 11th May 18, 4:28 PM
    The same process as in now study #3 of the faq.

    Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving

    You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you
    • seanuk909
    • By seanuk909 11th May 18, 4:35 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    seanuk909
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 4:35 PM
    • #3
    • 11th May 18, 4:35 PM
    What if the driver has already been mentioned in the original appeal before the 'victim' discovered this forum? (Asking for a friend!)
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th May 18, 5:24 PM
    • 10,559 Posts
    • 10,952 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 5:24 PM
    • #4
    • 11th May 18, 5:24 PM
    What if the driver has already been mentioned in the original appeal before the 'victim' discovered this forum? (Asking for a friend!)
    Originally posted by seanuk909
    Then your friend won't be able to use any of the protection that the keeper may have via the Protection of Freedoms Act.

    Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread for further details.
    Last edited by KeithP; 11-05-2018 at 5:27 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 6:57 PM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,475 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 6:57 PM
    • #5
    • 11th May 18, 6:57 PM
    Same as half the POPLA appeals here, from all the other people who blabbed. Why do people think it's unusual to have named the driver, we see it all the time.

    That's why there are other POPLA appeal points. I'd expect you to use the same three standard points from the NEWBIES thread as the Euro Car Parks poster I just replied to saying exactly the same thing.

    Like Groundhog Day on here again...and no, I'm not saying up front what the 3 POPLA points are...
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • seanuk909
    • By seanuk909 11th May 18, 9:36 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    seanuk909
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 9:36 PM
    • #6
    • 11th May 18, 9:36 PM
    Like Groundhog Day on here again...and no, I'm not saying up front what the 3 POPLA points are...
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I'm sorry, i did read the FAQ several times for not wanting to be one of *those people*, but I really couldn't see any other reference than 'overstays'.

    Thanks for your help and point in the right direction.
    • seanuk909
    • By seanuk909 23rd May 18, 9:24 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    seanuk909
    • #7
    • 23rd May 18, 9:24 AM
    • #7
    • 23rd May 18, 9:24 AM
    OK, so here's my appeal letter to POPLA:

    Dear POPLA,
    PCN Number: xxx
    POPLA Code: xxx

    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxx, I wish to appeal the 」100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Premier Park Ltd.

    I state that the driver did make cash payment for the allotted car parking time using one of the machines located outside the main entrance to the venue. As more than a week had passed since the event the driver no longer has a receipt or copy of the parking ticket. Upon receipt of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) I requested proof of all transactions for the payment machines for a specified time before and after my vehicle entering the car park. Premier Park Ltd refused to provide this.

    Therefore, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. Keyboard sensitivity on the payment machine easily allows for data entry errors
    2. Premier Park Ltd failed to provide sufficient evidence that I did not pay for the allotted time
    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    4. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    5. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time.

    -----

    1. Keyboard sensitivity on the payment machine easily allows for data entry errors

    The key card on the parking payment machine is extremely sensitive. It's too easy to enter incorrect details. There is no fail-safe in place to prevent this. AS I know I payed for my parking time, I can only imagine that there was a slight error in the entering of my car registration, and having sight of a list of registrations will prove this.


    2. Premier Park Ltd failed to provide sufficient evidence that I did not pay for the allotted time

    In my appeal to Premier Park Ltd, I requested evidence to point 1. above. Premier Park Ltd failed to respond to this request and rejected the appeal. Should this case proceed to court, this evidence would be required by the court.


    3. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

    I require Premier Park Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Premier Park Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier Park Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

    In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
    ''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
    21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. 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.
    21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators!!!8217; Handbook.
    21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
    21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    !!!8226; be registered with the Information Commissioner
    !!!8226; keep to the Data Protection Act
    !!!8226; follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    !!!8226; follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

    At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.


    3. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

    I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Premier Park Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Premier Park Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

    I request that Premier Park Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed !!!8220;unfair!!!8221; under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time.

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
    !!!8220;Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear!!!8221;.

    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Parking Eye is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

    The alleged breach occurred on a rainy night and the signs were not visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.

    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met (see attached photographs of non-bpa-compliant, non-obvious signage).

    Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    As Premier Park Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what ParkingEye is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully
    Last edited by seanuk909; 23-05-2018 at 1:40 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 23rd May 18, 12:03 PM
    • 10,559 Posts
    • 10,952 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 23rd May 18, 12:03 PM
    • #8
    • 23rd May 18, 12:03 PM
    You would be wise to remove your vehicle's reg. no. from that post.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th May 18, 12:58 AM
    • 63,827 Posts
    • 76,475 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 24th May 18, 12:58 AM
    • #9
    • 24th May 18, 12:58 AM
    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxx, I wish to appeal the 」100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Premier Park Ltd.

    I state that the driver did make cash payment
    If you are sure you gave yourself away as driver, don't hide behind third party words like that.

    Could instead start:

    I write to you as the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle xxx, I wish to appeal the 」100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Premier Park Ltd.

    I state that I did make cash payment
    and your PCN isn't from ParkingEye (they are a company, that's not a name for ANPR systems generally!):
    3. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    change to:

    3. No Contract was entered into between Premier Park and myself except to pay the small tariff, which I did.
    Re this, why oh why does everyone take the blame for what could be a system error?
    1. Keyboard sensitivity on the payment machine easily allows for data entry errors

    The key card on the parking payment machine is extremely sensitive. It's too easy to enter incorrect details. There is no fail-safe in place to prevent this. AS I know I payed for my parking time, I can only imagine that there was a slight error in the entering of my car registration, and having sight of a list of registrations will prove this.
    Re-write that saying you can only imagine the keypad had the 'usual' fault you have now read about as reported far too often by victims of Premier Park, namely that (unbeknown to drivers) the first key pressed is ignored by the machine...

    ...it would be great if you could go back and test this and video it...these machines have been reported more than once, as just 'beeping' when the first digit of a VRN is keyed, and the small screen doesn't recognise that first key...go and film it. Send the video as an uploaded file to POPLA as well, if you succeed in proving this (seen it mentioned before on here last year).

    POPLA is hard to win v PP, so if you can film the error and stop thinking it was you, then that video evidence would be dynamite - not just for POPLA but for a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner afterwards, for failure to ensure the data systems work properly together in a car park where the PPC is required to comply with the ICO CoP.

    Which leads me to the final new POPLA point to add, the one about the ICO Surveillance Camera Code. Search and ye shall find, several recent examples!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-05-2018 at 1:00 AM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
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

4,315Posts Today

7,468Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I've just heard about the 8 month pregnant woman shot through the stomach by a crossbow. Its both evil and medie? https://t.co/hQTOxWiXhj

  • Major new guide... Brexit, what it means for you and your finances: M mortgages, savings, flights, consumer rights? https://t.co/SXCMG2qXwX

  • Have you haggled on the high street in the last year? If so who with and did you succeed? Please vote in this week? https://t.co/fdzmmFfA4u

  • Follow Martin