PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Premier Park PCN from Red Funnel ferry pick up terminal!
Paulzx2
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 20:32
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



Hello All,

I'm looking for some help with this if possible. I've done a bit of investigation on Premier Park so I know who they are now.

Basic scenario here is that my mother stopped off in her car at the Red Funnel foot passenger ferry at Cowes on the Isle of Wight, she was dropping someone off, the whole episode took 20 mins and she received a PCN.

First thing I want to mention is that this is not a car park or a ticket buying situation, there are no tickets to purchase here. For as long as we have been using this terminal (20 + years), it has never been under the control of any parking services contractor, so there have never been any penalties issued there. Obviously at some point recently, Premier Park started to operate without notice to the public using the terminal. You can imagine the result.

So in their letter they have stated vehicles are allowed to stay in the terminal grounds for 15 minutes and we were there for 20. Their basis for making people aware, is the placement of several smallish signs placed on pillars at one side of the terminal. The signs are about 350mm square - pretty small and not very noticeable, in fact they don't face the incoming traffic at all, they are offset to one side. The problem for regular users is that small signs have always been on those pillars for a variety or reasons (but never penalties), so naturally people are not really aware anything has changed.

The other mitigating circumstance is that due to the traffic in the terminal which includes buses and cabs, my mothers car was blocked in which caused the extended stay. This is not uncommon at the terminal because it's quite small, so you can see there is an opportunity to surreptitiously start an operation here without people being aware anything has changed.

So we've appealed to Premier Park and they have rejected that, as is standard procedure for them. They have given us a POPLA reference no to appeal to them etc.

How do you guys think this will go - do we need to appeal to POPLA or do you think their case is so weak that they won't issue a court summons anyway, in which case we could just ignore? In my view, I can't see how any contract between them and the driver can be established if the driver is never aware of the operation, it's not the same as buying a ticket to park, accepting the terms of that and then overstaying is it?

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 20:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 20:53
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



See if the land is subject to byelaws, as a port it is likely. If it is then there can be no keeper liability, only the unknown driver can be held liable.

Photo of the signs might help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:33
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



In your appeal was the drivers ID indicated?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 12:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Premier Park always fish for the drivers details, if you don't provide them. I hope the OP has not fallen for their email.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 17:04
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:53) *
See if the land is subject to byelaws, as a port it is likely. If it is then there can be no keeper liability, only the unknown driver can be held liable.

Photo of the signs might help


Yep I will obtain a photo of the signage. The area isn't really a port as such, it's just a large drop off/pick up area in front of the foot passenger ferry terminal.
My understanding is that it's privately owned and not by the ferry company
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 17:45
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 22:33) *
In your appeal was the drivers ID indicated?


Here is the appeal in full, it was written by a solicitor friend of the family, although he has written it as if he was the driver at the time, which he wasn't.


Dear Sirs

I recently received a Parking Charge Notice (the “Notice”) dated 19th April 2019 concerning the presence of my vehicle in the Fountain Yard waiting area (the “Fountain”) on 14 April 2019.

The Notice includes pictures of my vehicle entering and exiting the Fountain when I attended in order to pick someone up from the Red Jet on the day in question.  Whereas, I did not take a note of the exact times myself, I have no reason to dispute these.

As I do not visit the Fountain regularly, my recollection of the circumstances on the particular day are clear.  When I entered the Fountain, there was a good deal of vehicle congestion.  Indeed I was unable to park my car in the furthest left hand side (in front of the shops) owing to a number of vehicles which were already parked there.  Instead, I had to park alongside those vehicles and was quickly “boxed-in” by other vehicles who were, I assume, also waiting to pick up passengers from the Red Jet which I believe arrived shortly after 4pm.  I have been informed that there are markings on the road on the furthest left hand side indicating that parking is limited to 10 minutes however these would not have been visible to me owing to the presence of parked vehicles.

 

When the red jet arrived, my passenger came immediately to my car and we attempted to leave the Fountain.  Unfortunately, owing to the congestion, I had to wait behind other vehicles to leave.  This was the reason that the Notice shows my vehicle entering and exiting at the times noted.  It was impossible for me to leave any quicker without the assistance of a crane to lift my vehicle over the vehicles blocking me in.  To my mind, this is similar to congestion on any other highway.  We all know that parking on a motorway is illegal – however the police do not issue parking fines each time there is a crash to all the cars which are forced to be stationary behind.  You should not do so either.

 

As mentioned, I do not attend the Fountain often and the 10 minute waiting rule was not known to me previously.  I have not yet been back to inspect the signage in order to understand whether this is clear on entry to the Fountain or whether it appears only once you are in the Fountain and land locked by other vehicles (indeed, owing to the one-way system in place in West Cowes, the signage would need to appear prior to entering the one way system on the public highway otherwise you are forced to enter the Fountain and then run the risk of becoming land-locked by other vehicles even if you decide to simply leave to comply with the 10 minute rule).  I understand that any signage which appears after you are committed could be unenforceable following case law such as Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel CA 1949.  If forced, I will attend the Fountain to inspect this however do not intend to make that journey unless as a last resort (one reason being that I could then find that I am again blocked in and receive another parking charge).

 

I believe the intention of the parking restriction is to deter people from parking their vehicles there and doing shopping or suchlike rather than simply picking up passengers alighting from the Red Jets.  All I did was pick up my friend in the manner intended.  I would therefore ask that you review the contents of this note and confirm that you will withdraw the parking charge on this occasion.  For my part, I will take measure to avoid the Fountain in the future so as not to again become trapped.

 

I would also ask that you note that the Notice was issued on 19 April and I did not receive this for 6 days.  This means a significant period of the 14 days referred to in the Notice was used up in delivery.  This might be something you may wish to look into.

 

I await your response.

 

Oliver Newman
Senior Legal Counsel  
Gurit (UK) Ltd

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 18:50
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:32) *
The other mitigating circumstance is that due to the traffic in the terminal which includes buses and cabs, my mothers car was blocked in which caused the extended stay. This is not uncommon at the terminal because it's quite small, so you can see there is an opportunity to surreptitiously start an operation here without people being aware anything has changed.

I'd say it's more than mitigating. It's a frustrated contract - that is the terms could not be complied with due to circumstances outside the driver's control.

QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:32) *
In my view, I can't see how any contract between them and the driver can be established if the driver is never aware of the operation, it's not the same as buying a ticket to park, accepting the terms of that and then overstaying is it?

Your view is wrong (all things being equal). If the signs are sufficient to form a contract then whether the driver saw them or not would likely be considered irrelevant - but this is somewhat in conflict with claiming a frustration. Basically, the driver 'agreed' to leave within the stipulated period but couldn't because of the traffic.

In terms of a claim many PPC's simply issue roboclaims for scare people into paying.

I'm a little confused of the 'appeal' - it's written in the first person but is signed by a 3rd party? Who are they pursuing?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 19:30
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 19:50) *
QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:32) *
The other mitigating circumstance is that due to the traffic in the terminal which includes buses and cabs, my mothers car was blocked in which caused the extended stay. This is not uncommon at the terminal because it's quite small, so you can see there is an opportunity to surreptitiously start an operation here without people being aware anything has changed.

I'd say it's more than mitigating. It's a frustrated contract - that is the terms could not be complied with due to circumstances outside the driver's control.

QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 21:32) *
In my view, I can't see how any contract between them and the driver can be established if the driver is never aware of the operation, it's not the same as buying a ticket to park, accepting the terms of that and then overstaying is it?

Your view is wrong (all things being equal). If the signs are sufficient to form a contract then whether the driver saw them or not would likely be considered irrelevant - but this is somewhat in conflict with claiming a frustration. Basically, the driver 'agreed' to leave within the stipulated period but couldn't because of the traffic.

In terms of a claim many PPC's simply issue roboclaims for scare people into paying.

I'm a little confused of the 'appeal' - it's written in the first person but is signed by a 3rd party? Who are they pursuing?


Parking Premier sent a letter back turning the appeal down, addressed to my mother at her address. The solicitor appears to have written the appeal in first person as if it was him. I don't know why he did that or if it even makes any difference?

As you pointed out though, the other argument is that the vehicle was blocked in so it couldn't leave. The other point about the signs is that when you see the photo, you'll realise they really aren't sufficient and in any case, you can't see them until you're in the yard so you have no way to avoid going in there. They stipulate a 15 minute waiting time in their letter which is all well and good.. if you can get out again!

So what course of action do you recommend now - appeal to POPLA or chance it that PP will not produce a court summons? I really don't know what they are likely to do. I read on here that only a minor amount of court summons were produced from a huge amount of penalties issued etc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 19:58
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



POPLA will likely conclude the signage was sufficient (unless you can show otherwise) and the charge was 'correctly issued'. They don't understand frustration - frustrating!

Does the paper claim and keeper liability?

Ultimately, they won't accept any appeal - and it's up to them whether they issue a claim...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 19:58


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:12
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:58) *
Does the paper claim and keeper liability?


Not sure what you meant by that. Are you referring to the original PCN letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Does the original charge letter have references to the Protection of Freedoms Act?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:40
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 21:12) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:58) *
Does the paper claim and keeper liability?


Not sure what you meant by that. Are you referring to the original PCN letter?

Sorry, my typo. Does the paperwork claim the keeper is liable? (Protection of Freedoms Act)


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 21:36
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



Ah I see the last two posts have mentioned that. I don't know, I'll find out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 08:48
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 21:18) *
Does the original charge letter have references to the Protection of Freedoms Act?


Yes, original charge letter states that if penalty is not paid and they are not in receipt of the drivers name and address, they can recover the money from us, which then mentions protection of freedoms act


QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 21:40) *
QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 21:12) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 19 Jun 2019 - 20:58) *
Does the paper claim and keeper liability?


Not sure what you meant by that. Are you referring to the original PCN letter?

Sorry, my typo. Does the paperwork claim the keeper is liable? (Protection of Freedoms Act)


Yes, letter says if you were not the driver, supply the name and address of the driver so they can write to them.

By the way, the appeal letter although signed by Oliver was changed and signed by my mother when they sent it in, so he effectively wrote it for her as if it was from her. The appeal letter pretty much admits it was her driving anyway?

I imagine you guys are going to say sending in the appeal was the wrong thing to do, because it effectively admits liability whereas if they had asked about this before writing, I assume you can just say it wasn't you driving and you're not prepared to give contact details of the driver - or you just don't respond at all?

Is that accurate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 09:14
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Bloody stupid solicitor. Probably specialises in mortgage business and divorce proceedings.

So, what now.
As already mentioned frustration of contract is quite clear. It's like driving into a Tesco car park which allows 2 hours free parking but then putting a barrier across the exit.

Then the sign-age sounds to be incapable of setting any contractual conditions as they are so small and positioned so that cannot be seen by incoming visitors. Sounds to be a deliberate scam.

Then there's the fact that the signs won't allow make a contract to park, rather that they will be prohibitive in nature but we need to see one of them.
Is there a payment machine for longer stays? If not that would back up the fact that they aren't offering you the chance to park for longer than the permitted 15 minutes.
It then becomes a matter of trespass.

I can see that roads around the area are all able to be driven down by Google Street View so these are public highways but the land itself used for the car parks won't be.
As it's a port area you can bet your bottom dollar that it's covered by byelaws. A quick search finds that the area is likely to be covered by bye-laws under the Associated British Ports - Southampton - Cowes byelaws but you'll need to dig them out.
Once you see them and are pretty certain that the ferry terminal is covered by them get back to us as there's no way a breach of byelaws can be taken to task in the manner it has been. Or should I say - it shouldn't be taken to task but often is.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 08:23
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



Thanks for the advice - I can't find anything on the byelaws pertaining to that area though. I see in the local press there are lot's of complaints about this, but I think people are just paying up.

They gave 28 days from the rejection of the appeal, so the payment due date is the 27th June
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 12:34
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 09:23) *
Thanks for the advice - I can't find anything on the byelaws pertaining to that area though. I see in the local press there are lot's of complaints about this, but I think people are just paying up.

They gave 28 days from the rejection of the appeal, so the payment due date is the 27th June

So ignore it.
Send an email telling them once more of the "frustration of contract" due to the terminal being at a standstill which prevented you leaving you in the time you had.
Email it. Do all further things by email and keep a copy of all the trail for use in court if they are stupid enough to take it that far.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 12:53
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Bloody stupid solicitor. Probably specialises in mortgage business and divorce proceedings.

+1

Cannot imagine a more incompetent appeal

Admits the identity of the driver at a location where, contrary to Premier's assertion, POFA does not apply
Admits that the timings are accurate
Admits the existence of the signs

An appeal to POPLA now has zero chance of success because Premier will simply produce the appeal as evidence

All your mother can do now is ignore everything short of a Letter Before Claim when she can send a Frustration of Contract reply

She could go on the offensive and leave Premier in no doubt that "this one bites":

Send complaints to the BPA and DVLA that Premier is falsely claiming on their Notices to Keeper that POFA applies at a location that is not relevant land



This post has been edited by Redivi: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 12:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paulzx2
post Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 19:48
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 18 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,350



Okay chaps, thanks for all your help on this. I don't know what will happen now but there is a concern on our side is the extra cost incurred if we do go to court and lose, which of course frightens people a bit and convinces them to pay.

Personally I feel like calling their bluff but it's not my money to lose if a court ruled in their favour. I do have some experience with the county court and I know full well you can't always predict the outcome especially in a case like this.

I think regardless of whether we email premier with the frustration of contract, they have to decide this end if they want to chance it with a court hearing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 06:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Paulzx2 @ Sun, 23 Jun 2019 - 20:48) *
Okay chaps, thanks for all your help on this. I don't know what will happen now but there is a concern on our side is the extra cost incurred if we do go to court and lose, which of course frightens people a bit and convinces them to pay.

Personally I feel like calling their bluff but it's not my money to lose if a court ruled in their favour. I do have some experience with the county court and I know full well you can't always predict the outcome especially in a case like this.

I think regardless of whether we email premier with the frustration of contract, they have to decide this end if they want to chance it with a court hearing.

I'd say that the bluff is being made right now. Premier will not want a well presented case going to court on land they have no right to ticket on.
I'd wait until their rejection comes back then start with a series of other communications telling them in no uncertain terms that you are not going to pay. The facts of the circumstances will be presented to court without reference to any lost appeal and frustration of contract alone will be enough to sink them, let alone the fact that the land isn't covered under the PoFA regime.
A lot of cases started for court action are just done so to put further pressure on people rather than with the intention of taking it right to the bitter end. They are effectively using the court system as a weapon to intimidate..
I'd hang out on this. At the worst a loss in court, and a well presented case shouldn't suffer that, will result in payment of no more than what it's probably already cost for the useless solicitor to send an appeal.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 05:47
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here