Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ PREMIER PARK MARITIME CAR PARK PARKING CHARGE NOTICE

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 09:53
Post #1308087

Good morning all,

Premier Park have issued a parking notice. The ticket was for two hours the driver arrived back at the vehicle on time but they didn't leave the car park for 20 minutes after ticket expired as they wasn't aware it was an ANPR camera., A letter has been receieved off a lease company saying the driver owes a £100 pound charge or £60 they pays within 14 days. My question is there a case here for the driver or would they be fighting a loosing battle? and better for the driver to pay the £60 quickly? Any Advise would be great as haven't been in contact with them at all yet.

Many Thanks
Kernow

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 10:56
Post #1308094

Pleas find attached photos of the paper work I received

p

Posted by: Dennis Basher Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 10:58
Post #1308097

Hi kernow

Firstly, Parking companies trawl this forum for information and you need to edit your opening post to remove any clues which may identify the driver.

Have you actually received a Premier Parking Charge Notice in your name yet? Or is this the Premier's initial PCN sent to the lease company which the lease company has passed on to you?

In order to transfer liability to you ("the hirer"), the lease company should have provided Premier with your name and address, together with a copy of their hire agreement with you. Premier should then reissue the PCN to you as a "Notice to Hirer".

The first thing to do is to contact the lease company to tell them not to pay the charge and that you intend to challenge it.


Edit - just seen the pictures you've posted. Leaseplan have written to you to tell you that they have passed your details on to Premier. You should receive your own "Notice to Hirer" in the next couple of weeks. When this arrives, we can help you through the process of challenging it.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 11:32
Post #1308100

Your lease company doesn't seem to have got the idea behind private parking, or the steps required. They are talking about a Driving Offence and Authority Name. The piece of paper they received was actually a speculative invoice from a private business. I would think that this would be won for the usual lease car reasons if the identity of the driver is not know so it is urgent that the OP edits the first post and talks about the driver. I won't go into the details until later.

There could also be a second reason for failure of Premier Park. The land may very well be subject to byelaws. Looking at the maps it is very close. I'll leave it to the OP to investigate.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 13:33
Post #1308115

Thanks a lot for the replies so just to confirm the keeper needs to wait until a notice to hirer is received? Again thanks to all for taking the time to post very much apprieciated.

Posted by: kommando Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 13:36
Post #1308116

The keeper not the driver.

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 14:40
Post #1308123

The driver does nothing as the invoice will be a notice to keeper (the hirer) and it is the keeper who will respond to that.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 15:44
Post #1308135

Edit post #5. The keeper is waiting

Posted by: kernow2017 Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 10:37
Post #1311310

Hi all I have received the paperwork for the parking charge in my company name sad.gif . What is the next step? Also with my van being a private lease through my company as a sole trader does this effect anything?
Thanks again.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 26 Aug 2017 - 12:49
Post #1311338

Did you receive a copy of the hire agreement as well as the notice to keeper/hirer?

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 20:49
Post #1311590

No I didn't receive a copy of the hire agreement is it something I need to ask for or should it be sent as standard? The form is identical to the picture I posted apart from my address and company name on it. Tomorrow is the last day for the reduced rate so hopefully can sort something.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 21:04
Post #1311593

With a notice to hirer paragraph 14 (2) (a) of POFA kicks in. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enactedAs there are none of the documents listed included with the notice then they have failed to conform to the requirements of POFA to be able to hold the hirer liable. Wait till just before the time they specify you have to respond by and send them a BOGOFF letter. Delaying the letter slightly means that they cannot issue you a new compliant Notice to Hirer within the 21 days they have after receiving the details from the lease company.

They will probably come back and state something like they are continuing on the reasonable assumption that the hirer was driver but then you point out that a body corporate is unable to drive.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 21:49
Post #1311600

Thanks Ostell for the post!! have messaged you....Would a letter like this be sufficient?
I'm Change it to Premier park and all but does rest seem ok?

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by Highview Parking Ltd (“Highview”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why Highview’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular.

Given that Highview has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.


Yours faithfully,

Posted by: Dennis Basher Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 22:56
Post #1311607

Once you've changed "Highview" to "Premier", the drafting of your letter will be okay - unless your company is the hirer, in which case you will have to write the letter in the company's name (e.g. we confirm that [ABC Ltd] is the hirer of this vehicle and we write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN etc.).

I expect that the "Notice to Hirer" you've received is actually just Premier's non-POFA version of its Notice to (Registered) Keeper i.e. it won't attempt to claim keeper / hirer liability and won't make any reference to POFA at all. Even so, regardless of what you write, Premier will reject your challenge. However, beware - you will only get a POPLA Code after they have had a go at tricking you into revealing the driver's details.

[Edited to correct typo]

Posted by: ostell Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 07:17
Post #1311620

That would be fine, with the amendments suggested by Dennis. I would not be too polite with them and just miss out that last paragraph. But then that's just me.

Don't send it too early as you don't want to give them a second chance to issue another compliant version of the notice but don't miss any time limit they give.

Posted by: kernow2017 Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 08:53
Post #1311629

Ok thanks a lot for the advise will hang on a bit then send it. Will let you know once I get the reply.

Posted by: ostell Mon, 28 Aug 2017 - 11:49
Post #1311650

While you're waiting. Have lease plan charged you for forwarding the notice and replying to Premierr?

Posted by: kernow2017 Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 17:46
Post #1318171

Sorry about delay, no there was no charge from lease company well as of yet. I have just received the reply from premier park but they haven't given me the code and have stated that if they don't hear back by the 28th September with the drivers details the registered keeper will be liable (lease company) the lease company have already been informed about parking charge being appealed and not to pay but have also stated that if they receive another letter an administration charge will be issued plus they will pay and forward the charge across? not sure what to do have heard ignore this first letter? here is a copy of it. P.S. had to delete the other attachment of paperwork from first post to allow space for this one. Any advise would be great on what to do? Thanks

 Scanpdf.pdf ( 672.03K ) : 139
 

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 18:57
Post #1318186

Complain to BPA and DVLA. They MUST issue a POPLA code with their rejection.

Reiterate to the hire company that the charge is not payable and you are continuing to fight it. You require that they send copies of any and all correspondence to you and they must not pay anything. You are dealing with it.

Await the comments of others to confirm.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 07:25
Post #1318247

Thanks for comment cabby. I thought the same otherwise there not giving me to opportunity to appeal it surely? I noticed Dennis Basher said in his comment below that you will only get POPLA Code after they had a go at tricking you to reveal drivers details? So maybe there bluffing..but definably not received POPLA code or any of the paperwork stated in POFA paragraph 14. Ok I'll wait to see if others agree.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 11:33
Post #1318285

Reply to them and quote the definition of 'keeper' in Schedule 4:

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper''

State that is in indisputable that a hirer is the keeper, and as such the registered keeper is out of the equation for liability. Enclose proof of your hirer status to prove you are the keeper and tell them that this removes any lawful presumption that the lease company keeps this vehicle, because they do not.

Then also send a copy of your correspondence attached to an email of complaint to the BPA and DVLA, saying that you wish to complain about this PPC, who know you are the keeper/hirer but are threatening to revert to the registered keeper (the lease firm) unless the actual driver is named.

Add that (this is a deliberate addition so please include it!):

If the recipient of this email at the BPA is minded to respond with a fob-off reply pretending that an AOS member has the discretion to decide to revert to a registered keeper when they know that party is not the POFA-defined 'keeper' for liability purposes, that they stop and refer the matter to Steve Clark first. For an AOS member or the BPA to say that an operator can revert to the 'registered keeper' when they know that party is as a matter of fact, not the 'keeper' is mistaken and wrong information. If this level of misinformation comes from the BPA, this is likely to directly cause you loss and detriment, for which you will hold the BPA jointly and severally liable unless a properly-checked and lawful reply with consideration of the POFA definition of 'keeper' is forthcoming.

aos@britishparking.co.uk

and

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 14:11
Post #1318323

Thanks Schoolrunmum.. Is there anything else you think I need to include? I have attached a third party authorisation letter that should have already been sent to Premier Park stating that the vehicle is on longterm lease is this enough paper work or would a monthly invoice be more substantial proof? Would these be ok I havent added anything really apart from your points. Even though in the Third Party Authorisation letter they state that it is a Penalty Charge Notice instead of a Parking charge noticed I have informed them of there mistake. cheers

Letter To Premier Park

24/09/17

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref : Parking Charge Notice ********

After receiving your letter there doesn’t appear to be a POPLA Code?
Looking at section 4 of POFA I would like you to refer to the definition of keeper;

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper

This is indisputable that the hirer is the keeper and as such the registered keeper is out of the equation for liability. Please find attached proof that ******* is the hirer/keeper, this therefore removes any law fall presumption that the lease company keeps this vehicle, because they do not.



Yours Faithfully


Email to DVLA/BPA

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you to complain about a PCN received off Premier Park please find attached relevant paperwork. They are aware that I am hiring a vehicle on long term lease and am the Hirer/Keeper. Premier Park are threatening to hold the registered keeper (lease company) liable unless the driver at the time is named.
If the recipient of this email at the BPA is minded to respond with a fob-off reply pretending that an AOS member has the discretion to decide to revert to a registered keeper when they know that party is not the POFA-defined 'keeper' for liability purposes, that they stop and refer the matter to Steve Clark first. For an AOS member or the BPA to say that an operator can revert to the 'registered keeper' when they know that party is as a matter of fact, not the 'keeper' is mistaken and wrong information. If this level of misinformation comes from the BPA, this is likely to directly cause you loss and detriment, for which you will hold the BPA jointly and severally liable unless a properly-checked and lawful reply with consideration of the POFA definition of 'keeper' is forthcoming.

Look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours Faithfully

 Scan_2pdf.pdf ( 545.26K ) : 80
 

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 21:07
Post #1318402

I've had second thoughts about the phrase fob-off and also, you've copied where I said 'you' (meaning, YOU) which needs to be written as 'I' instead. So how about this for the email to the DVLA and BPA:


Dear Sir/Madam

re PCN xxxxxx - Premier Park - formal complaint: withheld POPLA code from 'hirer' and threat to harass the registered keeper

I am writing to you to complain about a PCN from Premier Park and their unacceptable conduct in withholding a POPLA code, and threatening to revert to the registered keeper when they are already aware that I am hiring a vehicle on long term lease. I am the Hirer/Keeper and I appealed the notice that the lease firm has passed to me.

Premier Park are threatening to revert to - and harass for money - the registered keeper (lease company) unless the driver is named, and they have ignored the fact I am the 'keeper' under the definition in Schedule 4.

I attach a copy of the Notice, my replies as hirer/keeper of the vehicle and the third party authorisation letter that was already sent to Premier Park stating that the vehicle is on long-term lease to myself. I have also just sent them a further copy of this proof, but am alarmed about their threat to write again to the lease company, without lawful reason (no doubt because they know lease firms are easier prey for their unwarranted demand, compared with a robust appellant).

The driver has never been identified and will not be, but clearly your AOS member cannot state they will revert to the lease company if the driver is not named, as leverage/a threat against me, when I have proved I am the keeper for the purposes of Schedule 4 and am entitled to a POPLA code in response to my appeal.

This is the basis of my complaint and I have copied in Mr Dunford of the DVLA, who must be getting somewhat fed up with BPA and IPC members recently pretending that drivers must be named before appeals can be considered.

If the recipient of this email at the BPA is minded to respond by wrongly asserting that an AOS member has the discretion to decide to revert to a registered keeper when they know that party is not the POFA-defined 'keeper' for liability purposes, I politely request that they stop and (before replying to me) refer the matter to Steve Clark first.

For Premier Park to say that they will ignore information as to the identity of the true 'keeper' (hirer), and threaten to revert to the original registered keeper in the hope of immediate payment from that non-liable party, is disingenuous, unprofessional and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice regarding the handling of appeals and POPLA codes. I trust this practice by your AOS member will not be supported by the BPA on this occasion, but should this level of misinformation be forthcoming from the BPA in your reply, you may take formal note that this is likely to directly cause me loss and detriment, for which I will hold the BPA jointly and severally liable.

Kindly investigate this serious concern, and log it as a formal complaint about Premier Park.

Yours Faithfully

Posted by: kernow2017 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 20:41
Post #1318675

Thanks I really appreciate you taking the time to type that up Schoolrunmum, definitely isn't my forte! I will send the email in a moment to DVLA and BPA and will post a response to premier park tomorrow. Still no sign of a POPLA code or anything maybe it will arrive later this week.

Posted by: kernow2017 Thu, 28 Sep 2017 - 16:05
Post #1319336

Hi all, I have just received a reply for BPA I will copy there reply below. They seem to agree that Premier Park can go after the registered keeper. As I have signed the letter off as a company name is this correct even though it is my company? Also it doesn't really feel like I have a chance to appeal it as they haven't supplied a POPLA Code? Be great to here some advise on this as what I'm able to do next?

Dear ******

Thank you for your email.

For ease of reference I have included the details which are relevant for clarity copied directly from the POFA 2012 legsilation.

· “registered keeper”, in relation to a registered vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

· “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, ….”

· “driver” includes, where more than one person is engaged in the driving of the vehicle, any person so engaged”

From the attached I can see that correspondence sent to Premier Park has been signed off by ‘********’, (the hire company) yet the definition within the legislation explains (as outlined above) that a ‘keeper’ means the ‘person’ by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked. Ergo, as no ‘keeper’ has been identified in accordance with the POFA2012 definition, and as no ‘Driver’ details have been given, then the operator can pursue the Registered Keeper under this legislation.

Yours Sincerely



Posted by: kernow2017 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 06:57
Post #1319408

Should I send them another letter signing with my name and company? Or is it too late now? Thanks

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 07:29
Post #1319414

It is never too late for the Keeper to prove they are they Keeper, and the RK is not.

Posted by: Dennis Basher Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 12:35
Post #1319507

Premier aren't very sophisticated when it comes to issuing "Notices to Hirer". You will have noticed that their "Notice to Hirer" to your company was actually written as if the recipient were the registered keeper - e.g. "We have requested your details from DVLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle etc." You will have also noticed that the "Notice to Hirer" did not warn the recipient that the keeper could be liable for unpaid parking charges under POFA.

They are equally unsophisticated when it comes to issuing their standard "fishing" letter to get the driver's details i.e. the statement that they will hold the registered keeper liable has only been included because they haven't bothered to devise an alternative variant of their fishing letter to send to hirers. We've received similar letters from Premier and the standard rejection letter plus POPLA Code has always arrived shortly afterwards.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:07
Post #1319771

Ok thanks yeah I did notice that Dennis that their notice to hirer was identical to the one they sent the registered keeper apart from having my address on it. So perhaps for the moment I'll await their reply I've contacted the lease company just incase. If its never to late then I could always sent another letter once they made there next move. Cheers all!

Posted by: kernow2017 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 20:21
Post #1331400

Evening all, Premier Park seemed to go quiet for a while...I was assuming a POPLA code was going to arrive after reading a few other threads. I replied in time to the previous letter with a few days to spare and still haven't received the POPLA letter. I have just received my first reminder letter, please find image attached. It is very similar to the first letter I received to be honest apart from the fact that the £60 option has gone and also that they are threatening to pass the debt over to there debt recovery agent. Should I send the same reply to PP again asking to appeal the charge, as it seem they are not even acknowledging that I wish to appeal?

http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r616/kernow2017/IMG_0014%20copy_zpsdvnal1q9.jpg

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 21:16
Post #1331411

I would email the BPA back again (and COPY IN DAVID DUNFORD AT THE DVLA) using the same email thread where they said this:

QUOTE
Dear ******

Thank you for your email.

For ease of reference I have included the details which are relevant for clarity copied directly from the POFA 2012 legsilation.

· “registered keeper”, in relation to a registered vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;

· “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, ….”

· “driver” includes, where more than one person is engaged in the driving of the vehicle, any person so engaged”

From the attached I can see that correspondence sent to Premier Park has been signed off by ‘********’, (the hire company) yet the definition within the legislation explains (as outlined above) that a ‘keeper’ means the ‘person’ by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked. Ergo, as no ‘keeper’ has been identified in accordance with the POFA2012 definition, and as no ‘Driver’ details have been given, then the operator can pursue the Registered Keeper under this legislation.

Yours Sincerely




Dear xxxxxxx,

FORMAL COMPLAINT - PREMIER PARK - ignoring appeal from the keeper of VRN xxxxxxx (PCN ref xxxxxxx)

I refer to your email (shown in full below) and am now left with no option but to escalate this complaint, not least because Premier Park have still not responded to the appeal to their Notice to Hirer (a copy of the appeal is attached, which was submitted in time).

I have re-read your email and notice that you were careful to add an ellipsis when you part-quoted this definition from Schedule 4:

· “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, ….”

An ellipsis denotes the omission from writing of a word or words that are superfluous. However, the words you carefully excluded are far from superfluous, given that the full definition in the POFA Schedule 4 is:

· “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

Kindly explain why you stretched the realms of truth in responding to me, to half-quote a statutory definition and reach the misleading and erroneous conclusion that a 'keeper' can only be a ‘person’?

The Act says that the keeper is otherwise (unless proved to the contrary) presumed to be the 'registered keeper' - which in this case is a hire company. And the long term lessee/hirer is also a company, which has been proved already by the Third Party Authorisation provided to Premier Park when appealing.

Using your definition, are you seriously telling me that the official BPA line is that a company cannot appeal and it has to come from a 'person'?

For ease of reference I have included the details which are relevant for clarity copied directly from the definition of legal 'person' in English Law, in the OED:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/legal_person

· “legal person”
An individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.”

Ergo, the ‘keeper’ has indisputably been identified in accordance with the POFA2012 definition, and the operator MUST provide a POPLA code if rejecting an appeal from that party (whether that be an individual, company, or other entity). Instead, Premier Park have ignored the appeal and have now sent a letter threatening to pass the debt over to a 'debt recovery agent' (copy attached).

I have copied in Mr Dunford (DVLA) into this email and shown below your previous response for his information, as it seems appropriate for the DVLA to see the appallingly low level of responses coming from the British Parking Association when desperately scrabbling to cover the back of an AOS member. I would like to know whether the DVLA feel your last email was a fair and professional response from an ATA, under the circumstances.

I intend to copy your response and the entire file of documents to my local Trading Standards and to my MP.

yours sincerely,


your name
your address

cc: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk



The wording is a deliberate repeat of theirs, so don't change 'ergo' or 'For ease of reference I have included the details which are relevant for clarity copied directly from...'

because that would spoil the fun!

Posted by: kernow2017 Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 18:43
Post #1331628

Thanks again Schoolrunmum you been a great help. I'm going to get that email sent off tonight and see what happens next so I'll wait for a reply from BPA/DVLA before I contact Premier Park again I'm guessing as I have a further 29 days...

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 18:51
Post #1331629

This one will be interesting. their email in September was misleading/negligent and deserves exposing.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 14:47
Post #1332699

Ok I have received an email reply from BPA on Friday here it is :

BPA******

Dear ********

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have opened an investigation in relation to your complaint and the reference is above.

I have approached the operator for their comments and shall revert back to you once I receive their response – please note that it can take up to 14 days for the operator to investigate and respond.

Kind regards,

**********

Yeah I think your right there Schoolrunmum at least this time they have opened a formal investigation I'll post the response once they reply.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 17:07
Post #1332724

Softly softly catchee monkey.

the more I read that email from the BPA the more disgusted I am that they allow staff to spout such utter drivel to the public. I trust that they are embarrassed by it and that David Dunford read it the way I did.

Posted by: bama Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 18:44
Post #1332751

has the not so small matter of being covered by byelaws been resolved ?

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:37
Post #1336548

I'm not sure on the bylaws side of it bama if I'm honest.

I have received a reply from the BPA now here it is :

"Dear *********,

BPA – ******

We have investigated your complaint with the Operator and can advise as follows.

A parking charge notice ******* was issued at the Maritime on the 23 July 2017. The driver paid for 2 hours but stayed for 2 hours and 25 minutes. Keeper details were requested from the DVLA and this came back as LeasePlan. On the 11 August a Transfer of Liability was received from LeasePlan. On the 11 August the parking charge notice was reissued. Your notice of appeal was received on the 12 September.

A letter was sent to you on the 21 September asking for driver details – which they are entitled to do. A response was received on the 29 September refusing to name the driver and requesting POPLA details. In view of this, Premier Park sent a notice of rejection letter which contained your POPLA code on the 3 October. Please find attached a copy of the rejection letter.

As no POPLA appeal or payment has been received a reminder was sent on the 7 November.

As the appropriate process has been followed by Premier Park by issuing you with a POPLA code we cannot advise there to be a breach of our Code of Practice. In view of this, we have closed the investigation.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Kind regards,
*********
AOS Investigations Team


So Premier Park are saying that they sent me a notice of rejection letter but I never received anything. Where do I stand with this now? I need to contact Premier Park by Wednesday as that is the 29 days point. They have attached to the email a copy of the notice of rejection letter which they "apparently" sent which has my POPLA code on but obviously I'm way past the appeal point? I mean can they prove that they posted the notice of rejection letter?

Any advise would be great.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:44
Post #1336580

Well if you’re not sure you could do your own work on this and find out. It’s quite important to your liability in this.

Respond back to the BPA or PP and require pp send their certificate showing proof the letter was posted. As you will assert under a statement of truth that the rejection was never received, the presumption of service has been rebutted. In the interests of resolving this in the spirit of the ADR regulations you require another popla code. As this costs them nothing, it would be unreasonable to refuse this request.

Posted by: cabbyman Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 13:38
Post #1336614

You also need to research and understand the byelaws issue at this site.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 14:33
Post #1336625

I have been reading through older threads and searching about the bye-laws but my legal knowledge and understanding is lacking at the best of times. I've found an old post of bama's giving this http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Falmouth%20Harbour%20bye-laws.pdf which I noticed doesn't have a map of where this jurisdiction is covered I didn't notice anything definitive.

I'm close to throwing in the towel with this and paying, it definitely stressing me out. Really annoyed me the way they gone about it though holding back the rejection letter and all thats the main reason I'm holding out.

Have I got a decent chance if I keep pursuing this?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 14:37
Post #1336626

As they have attached a supposed rejection letter created on 3rd October, can you right click on the document and view the date created/edited?

Sounds like they've created it later...

Not only that, the BPA have completely ignored your complaint about the previous email which told you lies about who could appeal.

Posted by: bama Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 14:41
Post #1336628

check out byelaw threads by anon45 - he/she states it much more succinctly than I.

Short version
Byelaws are "statutory control". POPLA does not apply to such areas.
Byelaws have a geographical jurisdiction. I.e. if you are not with the boundary the byelaws do not apply to you.
So they need to know who was driving
AND
they can't use POPLA to transfer any alleged liability to the RK.
Do you see the problem they have with this ?
Byelaws do not have a provision for blackmail a ' pay us some money or we will do you' unlike speeding tickets where FPNs (which are a ' pay us some money or we will do you') are enabled in statute.

Byelaws can only cover what the relevant enabling legislation says they can.
A LOT of byelaws are written very badly (i.e don't really work for parking) and some have provisions which go far outside the enabling legislation. Such provisions are in the opinion of many thus rendered baseless, or "ultra vires".

Byelaws can only be enforced in Mags Court so neither the Authority (Airport/ railway/ harbour) nor the PPC get a penny.



see anon45s excellent posts on this matter

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:40
Post #1336654

I see what your saying there bama, I just cant seem to find out the boundaries of where this applies and also how to go about putting a case together for this. I noticed that it did state in the bylaws

42. (1) Any person leaving a vehicle in a parking place on harbour premises shall display on that vehicle a ticket issued by the Commissioners authorising the parking of that vehicle during such time as may be specified on that ticket.
2) A person shall not leave a vehicle in a parking place on the harbour premises for longer than the time specified on the ticket issued in respect of that vehicle."
So if it is under bylaws then the driver will be liable for a fine as has committed an offence

65. (1) Any person who contravenes or otherwise fails to comply with any of these bye-laws or any condition, requirement or prohibition imposed by the Harbour Master in the exercise if the powers conferred upon him by these bye-laws shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a fine -
(a) In respect of an offence under bye-laws 42, 45, 54 and 63A above not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(b) in respect of an offence under any other bye-law not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(2) In any proceedings for an offence under the bye-laws it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove -
(a) that he had a reasonable excuse for his act or failure to act; or
(b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.
(3) If in any case the defence provided by paragraph (2) above involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to act or default of another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the Court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor written notice giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that person as was then in his possession.

Its got to be close as it is near the harbour for sure. Has anyone found a map of the area the bylaws?

I'm going to email BPA to request another POPLA code as the notice of rejection wasn't received.

I also noticed that schoolrunmum I think maybe they realised that they had given false information and decided not to mention it again!! I've got a feeling that PP just made the letter up to send it to BPA once they started investigating.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 17:06
Post #1336658

Could you see the date the supposed 'rejection letter' was created/edited? Seen PPCs do this before, several times, & the attachment was recent.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:09
Post #1336697

The whole point of byelaws is that if they do not know who the driver was then they cannot come after the keeper using POFA.

Posted by: bama Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:48
Post #1336728

QUOTE
SCHEDULE
LIMITS OF JURISDICTION
The limits of jurisdiction within which these Bye-laws apply comprise Falmouth
Harbour being the area defined in section 4 of the Falmouth Harbour Act 1958 as the
harbour, the limits whereof are shown within the black line delineated on the signed
map referred to in that section and include the added limits as defined in the Falmouth
Harbour Revision Order 1985 all of which limits are shown on the annexed map


but no annex.
get one from the harbour authority.
and/or from the Secretary of State.

any of the regulars (you know who you are) have a copy of the map ?

they don't seem to have the byelaws anywhere on their website any more - at least a search within their website came up with nowt except a FAQ.
you have to wonder why they would 'hide' them.....

premier Park did try a small claims (i.e civil case NOT Byelaws) in 2015
As I recall their evidence pack was pants - and tried to use POPLA



Posted by: Robbo223 Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 12:37
Post #1336848

Sorry to be a party pooper guys, but the byelaws relate to Falmouth Harbour Commissioners control of Custom House Quay & North Quay car parks, not the one this thread relates to. The reference to 'Maritime' is a nod to the nearby Maritime Museum. This car park has nothing to do with FHC as far as I am aware.

Posted by: Umkomaas Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 13:19
Post #1336860

QUOTE
They have attached to the email a copy of the notice of rejection letter which they "apparently" sent which has my POPLA code on but obviously I'm way past the appeal point? I mean can they prove that they posted the notice of rejection letter?

As well as checking the metadata as suggested by SRM, why not check out the POPLA Code which has just 28 days before expiry. Find its expiry date and work back from that to compare its issue date with the supposed date of their rejection letter.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

Posted by: kernow2017 Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:07
Post #1336973

Hi all thanks a lot for your help I have check the attachment schoolrunmum and I can only see the date and time from when I downloaded the attachment from email. I have also just tried the POPLA code checker and it is dated the 3rd oct same as when the supposed letter was sent.
I have emailed BPA requesting another POPLA code and here is the reply

Dear *******,

Thank you for your reply.

BPA – *******

Please be advised our Code does not require letters to be sent via recorded delivery and they do not require proof of postage. In view of this, we cannot obtain proof the letter was sent. It is possible it was sent but not received.

Unfortunately as we are not a regulatory body we cannot force the Operator to re-issue a POPLA code. There has been no breach of our Code of Practice as a POPLA code was sent out to you.

You can speak to POPLA to see if they will accept an appeal late but as POPLA are independent it is not our decision to make.

We are sorry we are unable to assist you on this matter.

Kind regards,
********
AOS Investigations Team





Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:14
Post #1336976

QUOTE (kernow2017 @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:07) *
our Code


QUOTE (kernow2017 @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:07) *
but as POPLA are independent it is not our decision to make.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:25
Post #1336980

cc: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk



Dear BPA,

You say this:

''There has been no breach of our Code of Practice as a POPLA code was sent out to you.''

But there has been a breach, because it is a fact that no POPLA code was sent to me and it appears to me that the phantom 'rejection letter' was created merely because the BPA were paying lip service to 'investigating' the matter. I understand that you do not require AOS members to use recorded delivery, but you are certainly able to ask your member to show that POPLA code was actually allocated to me, and not to another person who didn't use it. Which is all a rogue firm would need to do.

What checks do you make as a Trade Body with responsibility for auditing these firms, to check POPLA code records actually match the person the AOS member claims they were issued to? Especially after the event, when the 'code' has conveniently expired already. There must be POPLA code records kept showing the allocation of a code and to which case it originally related. The BPA would also (very easily) be able to check the metadata on a letter an AOS member purports was sent in early October - did you take any steps whatsoever to be sure that letter wasn't created last week?

I have copied in the DVLA because the complete lack of even cursory checks by the BPA in these situations, is woeful.

yours faithfully,

Posted by: kernow2017 Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 22:38
Post #1337421

I emailed them today and looks like the BPA are sticking to there guns so looking like I will have to write to Premier Park to try to get a second POPLA code is this likely to happen? Is there any other options any one can think of if there has been any similar cases? What it seems like to me is all Premier park need to do is hold on to the notice of rejection letter until the POPLA code expires then say they have sent it and BPA back them up.


Dear ******

BPA – ******

Thank you for your e-mail, the contents in which have been noted. I have also copied in the DVLA for completeness.

Please be advised as we are not a regulatory body we can only investigate breaches of our Code of Practice. I have investigated your complaint fully and decided based on the evidence that no breach has occurred on this occasion.

Premier Park have provided a copy of the letter sent out to you which also included the POPLA code. I note you state you did not receive this, however, this does not mean there has been a breach of our Code. It is at the discretion of the parking operator whether to re-issue a new POPLA code.

Premier Park have provided us with a copy of the Code to show it has only been allocated to your ticket reference on the correct and applicable date.

On the evidence provided, we do not believe there has been a breach of our Code of Practice and therefore the investigation remains closed.

I am sorry we cannot assist you further with this matter.

Kind regards,
*********
AOS Investigations Team

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 00:16
Post #1337451

QUOTE
I will have to write to Premier Park to try to get a second POPLA code is this likely to happen?


About as likely as Crystal Palace winning the Premier League this season.

QUOTE
What it seems like to me is all Premier park need to do is hold on to the notice of rejection letter until the POPLA code expires then say they have sent it and BPA back them up.


Yep. Seems that way to us as well.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 6 Dec 2017 - 11:08
Post #1337501

Yep, so you write to them and ask for access to ADR, as is your right under the ADR Regulations 2015.
State that it is clear that you did not receive the code until after you chased, by which point it had expired. As there is no charge until the code is used to appeal, there is nothing stopping them issuing a second code. Refusal of this request would be unreasonable, and will be brought to the attention of any court where you will ask the court to order access to ADR.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 14:34
Post #1338591

thanks for the advise nosferatu. I've just typed this up to send to Premier Park I think it is worth a try, does anyone think there is anything I need to add or change?

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref : Parking Charge Notice *********

After receiving your first reminder notice I got in contact with BPA to investigate why a POPLA code was not sent to me. Once I got in contact with them and they investigated the case, BPA showed me that a notice of rejection letter was sent on the 3rd October which was not received at my address. Having received the code from BPA through email after it had expired left me with no chance to use it and appeal. I am asking for access to ADR as it is my right under the ADR Regulations 2015. I am requesting that you issue me with a new POPLA code as the first one was never received and now unable to use.




Yours Faithfully

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 14:56
Post #1338596

Nothing will make them just cancel, but try this:



QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam

Ref : Parking Charge Notice *********

After receiving your first reminder notice I got in contact with BPA to investigate why a POPLA code was not sent to me.

Once I got in contact with them and they investigated the case, I note that you suddenly produced a purported 'rejection letter' that you led the BPA to believe was sent on the 3rd October. This is not the case; no letter at that point was received at my address and I note you have kept no proof of posting, so I assert that this was likely to have been created, to stop the BPA from investigating your firm further. If you had sent me a POPLA code, I would have had no reason not to have used it.

The fact is, you issued no POPLA code, and the one on the phantom 'rejection letter' had conveniently already expired, leaving me with no chance to use it and appeal. I am asking for access to ADR and a non-expired POPLA code, as it is my right under the ADR Regulations 2015.

Should you proceed to issue proceedings against me without replying substantively to this letter and complying with your obligations under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Protocol and 15(b) of the Practice Direction and I will seek a costs order due to your unreasonableness.


Yours Faithfully

Posted by: kernow2017 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 10:17
Post #1346425

Hello all,

First off thanks for the wording and information which I have sent to Premier Park before xmas SchoolRunMum.

I haven't heard of received anything from Premier Park since but I think they are just choosing to ignore the letter (or pretending they haven't received it), is it worth writing a follow up or would you advise waiting for them to make a move?

Bit worried there going to send the debt collectors round now thats all!

Thanks

Posted by: ManxRed Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 10:52
Post #1346434

Debt Collectors don't 'come round'.

They are not enforcing an actual debt, just an alleged debt. In that respect they have no powers whatsoever, they are not bailiffs with a court order. Its not worth their while to call round, and we've never heard of it ever happening.

They'll just send letters, begging for the money, and trying to scare you by misrepresenting your actual legal position on this.

Posted by: ostell Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 11:40
Post #1346440

I've just read through the thread again to to try and recall what is happening. What doesn't seem to be happening is use being made of a hire car and none of the supporting documentation supplied bt Premier and the fact that the company, as the hirer/keeper, could not have been driving.

Otherwise I would keep quiet and not poke them

Posted by: kernow2017 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:04
Post #1346493

Actually its looks as though I might of spoke to soon, as speak of the devil a letter arrived in the post today. Its interesting that they haven't mentioned anything about ADR regulations and nothing about issuing a new POPLA code.

Here is the letter http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r616/kernow2017/IMG_0074_zpsovl3zovw.jpg

So Ostell what your saying is I need to mention the fact that they haven't issued me with all of the relevant documentation for the hire vehicle in the required timeframe? I was going to use that in the POPLA appeal but doesn't look like it will be happening.
So they have also dropped the charge back to the reduced rate of £60 is that a normal "goodwill gesture" of theirs?

Any advise on what to do next would be greatly received.....?


Thats good to hear ManxRed as was feeling pressured to get it sorted before it got to that stage!

Posted by: ostell Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:22
Post #1346499

So you got a letter to hirer/keeper when the hire company supplied your company's ID as the hirer to Premier and your company received a Notice to Hirer/Keeper addressed to the company. THat's what I have understood so far.

If that is correct then with that letter you should have received copies of portions of the hire contract and a copy of the original NTK sent to the hire company, as required by POFA 14 (2) (a). This is a failure of POFA and if they don't know the identity of the driver then POPLA should be won.

Why did you think you would not be using that particular failing, along with any other failings?

I noticed in the letter that Premier anre saying that you drive into the area and you parked. Are they just assuming you are the driver? Don't say who was.

The reduced charge is to get you to pay as they realise they will have a fight on their hands which looks as though they will not win.

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:31
Post #1346503

They're getting desperate. Why would they reduce the charge if they are entitled to the full amount? You're heading home!

If you respond, following advice from others, make sure you rebut their assumption that the hirer was the driver. They are referring to 'you parked..' etc. Remind them that there can be no assumption of who was driving. Elliott v Loake doesn't help them unless they have unimpeachable forensic evidence of the driver's identity. You are not obliged to name the driver, as they are well aware.

Their failure to follow POFA sched 4 para 13(2) means they cannot hold the hirer liable, only the driver.

In accordance with the previous letter (at post #56?) I require no further communication from you save to confirm cancellation or a properly constituted letter before action as per pre action protocol........etc.

See what others suggest.


Posted by: ostell Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:36
Post #1346505

The OP is in a good position in that the hirer was the company and matter how much they shout about making a reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver there is no way a corporate body could have been a driver.

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:10
Post #1346515

Good point, Ostell. Let's see Elliott v Loake defeat that one!!!! smile.gif

Posted by: ostell Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:18
Post #1346517

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:31) *
Their failure to follow POFA sched 4 para 13(2) means they cannot hold the hirer liable, only the driver.


I think that is 14 (2) as 13 applies to the hire company

Without waiting, or hoping, for POPLA I would suggest a BOGOFF to Premier.

My company is the the hirer and keeper of vehicle xxxx which received parking charge xxxxx from you.

You have failed to comply with the strict requirements of schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, section 14 (2) (a) to be able to hold the keeper liable. There is no legal requirement for the identity of the driver to be revealed and this will not be done.

Continuing with this matter on the basis that the keeper was the driver, using Elliot v Loake, will be vexatious as the company, as a corporate body, cannot possibly be a driver.

We do not expect to hear from you again, other than to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and our details have been expunged from your records.



Should be interesting what they come back with.

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post #1346564

Very true, Ostell. The value of peer review. I think that's one-all today! smile.gif

Maybe make that two-nil! sad.gif

Posted by: kernow2017 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:09
Post #1346565

Thanks for comments it does seem like the tide is starting to turn now! ....Ok I didn't actually receive a "notice to hirer" paperwork, what they sent was an identical parking charge notice letter, which they sent to lease plan originally, but just with my company name and address on and third party authorisation letter.

No other paperwork was received.

Premier Park are making the assumption that I was the driver.

Is it worth mentioning also that they didnt supply all the required paperwork to comply with POFA in my reply letter?

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:31
Post #1346573

You are telling them by virtue of quoting PoFA 2012 sched 4 para 14(2)(a). That's all that's needed. Given that they are 'professionals' in their business, they should know the provisions of PoFA backwards!!



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:29) *
You are telling them by virtue of quoting PoFA 2012 sched 4 para 14(2)(a). That's all that's needed. Given that they are 'professionals' in their business, they should know the provisions of PoFA backwards!!


POST your draft here for checking first. There are a couple of aspects to this that will need to be precisely worded.

Posted by: kernow2017 Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 20:42
Post #1346607

Ok cheers cabbyman I will send it as ostell has wrote so don't make any mistakes.

Posted by: kernow2017 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 17:19
Post #1356340

Hi All,

Just received a letter from SCS Law one thing I did notice on the paperwork is they have wrote down completely the wrong location for the charge so does this void the letter? Does it seem like a legitamate letter? I've heard that they are not able to send around high court enforcement and bailiffs is this the case? any help/advise on this would be great.

http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r616/kernow2017/Scan%201_zpstjh7s5fy.jpeg
http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r616/kernow2017/Scan_zpsjqtnpwac.jpeg

Thanks

Posted by: ostell Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 17:35
Post #1356350

Until it's been to court and you lose then they can not send out bailiffs. HCEO don't go out for less than £600.

I can't see the pictures, it's a phobucket fault, quite common since they started trying to make more money and introducing charges.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:23
Post #1356399

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:31) *
Elliott v Loake doesn't help them unless they have unimpeachable forensic evidence of the driver's identity.

Well they didn’t in Elliot v Loake did they, please don’t misquote it.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:26
Post #1356401

Who is SCS writing to, Kernow2017 the person, Kernow2017 the company or Kernow**** Ltd ?

Could send a simple response to SCS, adapted according to the answer above :

Dear Sir

Ref ****

We have received your letter dated **** and deny any debt to Premier Park

1 A company clearly cannot be the driver of the vehicle
2 Your client failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act to recover payment from the keeper
3 We are not the keeper of the vehicle
4 The vehicle was not in use for business purposes at the time stated in your letter and we have no vicarious liability for the actions of the driver
5 Your client has never alleged that the vehicle was present at the location stated in your letter

If you send a properly formatted Letter Before Claim in accordance with the Pre-action Conduct for Debt Claims, we will provide a more detailed reply
We will also at that time inform you of documents and information that we require from your client

Yours Faithfully

Posted by: ostell Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 21:07
Post #1356435

I managed to read the letter. It's not a LBC, it's merely a debt collector letter. Note the "may". The rest is just frighteners. I would just wait to see what happens next.

Send my suggested letter to Premier.

Could you use another photo hosting site rather than photobucket.

Posted by: kernow2017 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:34
Post #1357051

Hi all,

Thanks for all the responses I have uploaded them on another site incase anyone having trouble viewing them

https://flic.kr/p/22VChjX
https://flic.kr/p/ECR3vR

It is an account just made up for the photos so don't worry about the name showing doesn't identify me.

I sent your previous letter ostell to Premier Park, from which I received no reply only this SCS letter they basically ignored it.

SCS is writing to my company name not to me personally which isn't a limited company.

It does say on the letter at this stage please contact premier park so your saying to write directly to SCS not to bother replying to premier at the moment? Just want to make sure I do the correct thing. Also should I sign the letter with my name and my company name underneath?




Posted by: Redivi Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:29
Post #1357100

Although SCS only has its debt collector hat on, I would send the correspondence there anyway
You can copy it to Premier

That way, in the event of a claim, you can point to correspondence with Premier's solicitor that's been ignored, especially if you haven't received the correct Letter Before Claim that you requested

Sign it in your name on behalf of the company

Posted by: ostell Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 08:24
Post #1357160

The letter instructs you to contact Premier park. As it is only a debt collectors letter I would ignore. It may not even be from SCS law but Premier have "borrowed" the letterhead.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 09:25
Post #1357186

Ostell is absolutely right that it's a "debt collector" letter not a "solicitor" letter

I wouldn't however ignore it because it has the potential to make the OP look bad in the event of a claim

SCS is well known to the courts because it provides the solicitors for ParkingEye cases

As far as the court will be concerned, it's a reputable law practice that's written to the OP to warn him of potential legal action
The OP has failed to respond to a letter from a solicitor with either a payment or a reason that he disputes the debt

The OP then looks unreasonable and nit-picking if he justifies the failure by pointing to words like "may" and "if"


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)