PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PREMIER PARK MARITIME CAR PARK PARKING CHARGE NOTICE
kernow2017
post Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 09:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,501



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

This post has been edited by kernow2017: Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 13:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 77)
Advertisement
post Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 09:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:22
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:31
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,407
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



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.



--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 14:36
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:10
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,407
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



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


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:18
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 15:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,407
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



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

Maybe make that two-nil! sad.gif


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:09
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,501



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 18:31
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,407
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



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.


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 20:42
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,501



Ok cheers cabbyman I will send it as ostell has wrote so don't make any mistakes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 17:19
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,501



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/k...pstjh7s5fy.jpeg
http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r616/k...psjqtnpwac.jpeg

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 17:35
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:23
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,363
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



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.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:26
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 939
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



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

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 19:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 21:07
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 21:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:34
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,501



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?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:29
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 939
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 08:24
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,939
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 09:25
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 939
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



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"

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
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: Wednesday, 23rd May 2018 - 10:50
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.