PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN received from Premier Park, £100 charge for a period of 5 minutes
dingleberry
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



Hi there,

My SO has just handed me a PCN he has received from Premier Park as he is the RK of the vehicle in question. This charge if for being in a private car park for 5 minutes. I wondering if you could tell me if this PCN meets the conditions on POFA? I have a niggling feeling that it does and we are quite distressed about this as we are on low income as I am chronically ill and can barely afford to pay for food so certainly cannot afford to pay this. I would like to appeal but am disheartened that we won't have a chance if they have adhered to POFA. I have included a scan of the PCN and have redacted my SO's details for our protection. We also went to visit the car park to look at the signs, I will include the images. As you can see, this car park includes two residents parking spaces, the PCN shows 4 photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park with close ups to the reg, but provides no evidence that the vehicle was parked in a Vets4Pets parking bay. I intended on refusing to provide drivers details and challenging on the basis that they cannot provide evidence that the driver parked in the Vets4Pets bay instead of the residential bays. I can say unequivocally to you guys that the driver would have not parked there intentionally had they seen signage but on inspecting signage I expect that it would be considered clear enough and so I am very concerned about this. Thank you.

Here is a link to the gallery with all the files:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/36v06ci06/

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 109)
Advertisement
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
dingleberry
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:51
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:48) *
Yes, lay out the basis for such a counterclaim. (you cant just say "damages" - damages for WHAT)


I'm assuming it would be personal costs as in loss of time and money and compensatory damages for stress?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:08
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,984
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You assume wrong
The first woudl be costs of the CLAIM, not a counterclaim
These are restricted in small claims. You can usually only claim any costs to attend a *hearing*, and ONLY if you can show the Claimant was unreasonable under CPR27.14 can yo uget payment for any other costs.

Stree? You would need to prove it.
How about
Misuse of personal data (Vidal-Hall V Google)
harassment? (Ferguson V British Gas)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dingleberry
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:43
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 17:08) *
You assume wrong
The first woudl be costs of the CLAIM, not a counterclaim
These are restricted in small claims. You can usually only claim any costs to attend a *hearing*, and ONLY if you can show the Claimant was unreasonable under CPR27.14 can yo uget payment for any other costs.

Stree? You would need to prove it.
How about
Misuse of personal data (Vidal-Hall V Google)
harassment? (Ferguson V British Gas)


So would the claim for costs to attend the hearing be loss of earnings and travel costs? What amount would be acceptable to claim for misuse of personal data and harassment? I will research those cases, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 17:07
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Don't get yourself distracted with claiming costs. You need to focus on responding to the LBA. It is one of the better LBA's I have seen from PP. They appear to be improving but it is not perfect. They even admit in the letter that they have not provided you with all the required documents! So make them work hard. Ask for everything they have listed plus landowner contract, photos of ALL signs and locations, detailed map of the car park etc plus anything else you can think of. They are hoping that you don't ask for anything! Make them sweat.

The LBA claims that you formed a contract which you didn't. This is crucial. How can the driver break a contract that he didn't form? So dispute it! Also they claim that the driver has been named but you say he hasn't so dispute it. They say the RK named the driver but you say he didn't so dispute it! They say the driver didn't enter VRN details. He didn't because he didn't park and form a contract! So dispute it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dingleberry
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 17:45
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



Editing my previous comment, again, heres my LBA response, I've taken bit for here and there including a very helpful template from Eljayjay on another post. I'm trying to make their live as difficult as possible, feedback will be very much appreciated.

To Whom it may concern,

Thank you for your letter dated 24th September 2018.

In response to your letter before claim I would like to bring to your attention that I have attempted to enter into communication with you about why I dispute the alleged debt, please refer to the letter I sent dated 17th August. Unlike the claims in your letter we have received no other correspondence other than your generic rejection of my appeal, a letter from ZZPS Limited acting on your behalf to collect alleged debt and now subsequently this letter before claim. We have received no reminders or any other form of communication from you, therefore you have been unwilling to enter into any sort of resolution over the alleged debt. However, your letter contains insufficient documents in support of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago as the 23rd May 2018. It also fails to provide a copy of an un-redacted copy of the contract that you should hold with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent) to cover the date in which the PCN was issued. This was requested as far back as the 28th June 2018. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence you intend to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence other than the PCN.

This action is a clear breach of your pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. As you must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

Nobody is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. It is required that you provide the documentation you intend to rely on, therefore to comply with these obligations I request you send me the following information/documents:

Confirmation of whether you are pursuing me as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle;
If you pursue me as the driver I require explicit evidence that the driver has been named in correspondence and explicit proof that you know the identity of the driver;
A copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;
Evidence of ownership of the land;
The parking contract between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to you to charge for parking on the land - I note that an invalid out of date redacted copy of a contract was provided to POPLA with an option for a rolling contract extension. You failed to provide evidence that this contract had been extended to cover the period in which the PCN was issued;
If the land is owned and/or occupied by a company and the parking contract has not been signed by a director of the company (readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House), corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the signatory has been authorised to enter into the parking contract on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land;
If the land is owned and/or occupied by a company, corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the site plan is a true and accurate representation of the land which you purport is the subject of the parking contract;
A copy of the site plan provided by yourself to your accredited trade association;
A plan showing where any signs were displayed;
Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed);
Evidence and copies of reminder letters which you claim were sent;
Photographs showing explicit proof that the vehicle was parked or parked in a Vets4Pets parking bay rather than the residential bays within the same lot;
If you have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated;
A transcript of any previous judgement or judgments in any case or cases involving the same land and Premier Park;
Any other information and documents on which you would rely in court in support your belief that the current parking regime is valid.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as 23rd May 2018 yet you have refused to provide it.

Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to properly consider my position in relation to it. Nevertheless I will state why I still dispute the claim based on what information I have been provided thus far and on what evidence I have collated myself. Should you refuse to provide requested documentation, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

I dispute the debt on these grounds:

1.No contract formed with driver - Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 operators are required to provide drivers with a minimum 10 minute grace period in order to read the terms and conditions of the car park and to decide whether they are to accept to terms or not. As the driver entered and left the car park all within a 5 minute period, no contract was entered into. The entrance sign applied by Premier Park invites drivers to read further signage within the car park and therefor a grace period absolutely should be upheld.

2. Insufficient signage
- Signs make no explicit mention of the use of ANPR technology
- Entrance signs do not comply with the BPA’s Code of Practice, the signage does not take into account the anticipated speed of the vehicle approaching the car park, the entrance sign contains no Group 1 text and any Group 2 or subsequent text comes no where near meeting the minimum capital height of 60mm for a parking area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road with no barrier control, therefore the entrance sign is not legible for drivers without stopping, slowing or needing to look away from the road ahead or entering car park to read further signage.

3. I dispute on the grounds of unauthorised entry as no mention of entering the car park as being seen as unauthorised entry or trespassing is mentioned on any sign. The owners of the car park have made no attempts to mitigate losses by installing barriers or deterrents of any kind at the entrance of the car park. A “P” symbol is utilised on the entrance signage as well as the word “Welcome” and therefore welcomes drivers to use the space as a car park and does not deter against trespassing. Again I refer you back to section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 in which even if parking is not permitted a grace period is still required.

4. I dispute on the grounds that Premier Park have no proof of authority to manage the car park. I do not believe that Premier Park 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, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level. I contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic license to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to issue NtK Parking Charge Notices.
5. I dispute a £100 charge for a period of 5 minutes as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The documents I have provided in support are:

1. A copy of extracts of the BPA’s Code of Practice
- Section 13 Grace Periods
- Section 18 Signs
- Appendix B Entrance Signs
- Section 21 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
- Sections 20.5, 22.3 and 7.1

2. Photographs of the car park and signage

As you are no doubt aware, paragraph 5 of the Protocol reads as follows:

5 Disclosure of Documents
5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.
5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –
(a) provide the document or information; or
(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,
within 30 days of receipt of the request.

Naturally, I fully expect you to meet the requirements mentioned in paragraph 5.2 above.

I do, therefore, look forward to receiving either the documents and information which I have requested or your explanation why they are unavailable within the deadline set by the Protocol.

Yours Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxx

This post has been edited by dingleberry: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 18:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dingleberry
post Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 17:25
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



Hey guys, I know you don’t like the threads being bumped but some feedback on my LBA response would be really appreciated, thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 10:56
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,984
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Fitch 5. GPEOL is a horrible argument to put forward, unles syou know the Beavis casse inside and out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dingleberry
post Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 11:54
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 11:56) *
Fitch 5. GPEOL is a horrible argument to put forward, unles syou know the Beavis casse inside and out.


Okay, thank you Nosferatu. Any other recommendations or am I good to send?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 18:01
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



I would cut out the point about GPEOL. Apart from the complexities of the Beavis case I think it undermines your other points of defence.

I didn't quite follow the sentence that states 'The documents I have provided in support are:' is the grammer in error here?

Otherwise the letter is good and serves a good top-spin back across the net!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dingleberry
post Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 19:00
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,051



QUOTE (Macapaca @ Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 19:01) *
I would cut out the point about GPEOL. Apart from the complexities of the Beavis case I think it undermines your other points of defence.

I didn't quite follow the sentence that states 'The documents I have provided in support are:' is the grammer in error here?

Otherwise the letter is good and serves a good top-spin back across the net!


Yes I suppose the grammar isn’t fantastic there. The reply form asks me to submit copies of documents in support of why I dispute the PCN. I’ll reword that and remove GPEOL. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 15th October 2018 - 15:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.