PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

premier parking solutions £130 for not being in the bay.
slowmo
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 23:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



Hi all,

I'm looking for some advice regarding a parking ticket received whilst on holiday in Cornwall. The company in question is Premier Parking Solutions.

The driver was Parked in an underground car park at a premier inn. Parking was paid for, but the driver was Parked outside the bay. It was an end bay so no car space next to me. The driver wasn't in the road, nor causing an obstruct to anyone. The spaces where tight and I have a wide car. I chose the bay thinking I would be fine, so here I am now.

The registered keeper received a £100 ticket which ignored. They have sent two letters now, one with additional £30 administration fee.

What should the driver do next? It's seems on some forums people believe that they can only take you to court for the loss of the car space. So if it's £5 per bay, the driver offers them the loss of the car space. Is this true? The driver wasn't taking up another bay, so how would the driver make a fair offer?

A lot of people ignore the letters and they go away. Looking at other post, it's a lottery and maybe this would be another one that gets taken to court. By ignoring there letters, should this case go to court, it won't look good to the judge that the driver never try ed to sort this matter out sooner right?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by slowmo: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 08:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 23:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 00:14
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I've read that they can only take you to court for the loss of the car space

Wrong. You need to read ParkingEye ltd v Beavis. The parking firm can charge a larger sum as a deterrent, and £100 would not be considered extortionate (astonishingly!). So you cannot make an offer that will be accepted (because it won't), not can you use a 'no loss caused' argument.

QUOTE
A lot of people ignore there letters and they go away.
Sometimes, but we have not advised to ignore these fake PCNs, for the past 5 years!

QUOTE
I can also see from other post that's it's a lottery and I maybe another one that gets taken to court. By ignoring there letters, should my case go to court, it won't look good to the judge I never try to sort this matter out sooner right?
True, it looks better to make a response as a dispute. You would be politely replying by letter, pointing out that:

Parking was paid for, and because the car is wide the driver chose an end bay - so no car space next to the car, and no other cars could have been obstructed in any way. The spaces were tight and you could ask for the measurements of the bays there and state they are insufficient for modern cars, and also that the £100 charge was not visible at the PDT machine so it was certainly not 'agreed' and the Beavis case is distinguished. Should they feel they have a cause of action, you look forward to the usual BW Legal robo-claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 07:26
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Have you tried contacting Premier Inn and complaining to the management?

If you still have it post up the original PCN suitably redacted.

And just in case edit your first post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 07:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 07:48
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,075
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (slowmo @ Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 00:44) *
What should I do next? I've read that they can only take you to court for the loss of the car space. So if it's £5 per bay, I offer them the loss of the car space. Is this true? I wasn't taking up another bay so how would I make a fair offer?

Where did you read that? Total nonsense. In any case, don't believe anything else you've read there, either...

The PPC will argue that the driver agreed to the terms and conditions displayed on the signs posted in the area when the driver parked the car there. Assuming one of those terms was to park only or wholly within a marked bay, the PPC will argue that the driver breached that term, triggering the agreed payment of £100 (plus any agreed collection charges). There are a number of potential issues with this, and a number of counter-arguments, but some of those are untested and unproven.

The idea that the PPC will accept £5 when they believe they have you on the hook for £130 is almost hopelessly naive. PPCs do not make money from parking fees. The vast majority of their income comes from collecting parking charges at £100 (£50 discounted?) a pop. Their worst nightmare is a world where everybody parks in accordance with the terms and conditions, so you can forget about them accepting any sort of deep discount.

* * *

The FIRST thing you need to do is edit your post, OP ("OP" is Original Poster, i.e., you), so that it refers only to "the driver" and (where appropriate) to the "RK" (Registered Keeper, i.e., the person who received the PPC's notices in the post). In a PPC scenario, NEVER identify or admit to being the driver. Do it now.

The next thing you need to do is post redacted copies of the NtK (Notice to Keeper) and (if possible) a readable picture of the signage at the site. There are often errors in the NtK, which can be exploited. The signage is the "contract" allegedly agreed by the driver, so the wording is critical in order to understand the terms of the alleged agreement (but this is mainly relevant for the appeals and court stages, if any).

By the way, you might want to mention that the Beavis case "is distinguished", but this would be useless without specifying how it was distinguished...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:11
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 01:14) *
QUOTE
I've read that they can only take you to court for the loss of the car space

Wrong. You need to read ParkingEye ltd v Beavis. The parking firm can charge a larger sum as a deterrent, and £100 would not be considered extortionate (astonishingly!). So you cannot make an offer that will be accepted (because it won't), not can you use a 'no loss caused' argument.

QUOTE
A lot of people ignore there letters and they go away.
Sometimes, but we have not advised to ignore these fake PCNs, for the past 5 years!

QUOTE
I can also see from other post that's it's a lottery and I maybe another one that gets taken to court. By ignoring there letters, should my case go to court, it won't look good to the judge I never try to sort this matter out sooner right?
True, it looks better to make a response as a dispute. You would be politely replying by letter, pointing out that:

Parking was paid for, and because the car is wide the driver chose an end bay - so no car space next to the car, and no other cars could have been obstructed in any way. The spaces were tight and you could ask for the measurements of the bays there and state they are insufficient for modern cars, and also that the £100 charge was not visible at the PDT machine so it was certainly not 'agreed' and the Beavis case is distinguished. Should they feel they have a cause of action, you look forward to the usual BW Legal robo-claim.


Parking was paid for, and because the car is wide the driver chose an end bay - so no car space next to the car, and no other cars could have been obstructed in any way. The spaces were tight and you could ask for the measurements of the bays there and state they are insufficient for modern cars, and also that the £100 charge was not visible at the PDT machine so it was certainly not 'agreed' and the Beavis case is distinguished. Should they feel they have a cause of action, you look forward to the usual BW Legal robo-claim.

Is this an OK reply?

To Whom it may concern,

In reference to your first letter received on the 5th October 2018. Parking was paid for in full. The parking bays are very tight, and the driver's vehicle is very wide, as the driver didn’t want to cause an obstruction to other vehicles, the driver parked over the white line. The driver was very careful to choose an end bay that didn’t have a bay next to it. The driver was also carful to choose a bay that wouldn’t cause an obstruction to other road users.

The driver would like for you to provide measurements of the parking bay in question. Also, would like to see any picture you may have taken.

Further to the charge of £100, now £130 with admin fee: The fee wasn’t made visible at the PDT.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:19
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,691
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The driver in no way shape or form asks for ANYTHING
The KEEPER is asking for anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 09:19
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 08:26) *
Have you tried contacting Premier Inn and complaining to the management?

If you still have it post up the original PCN suitably redacted.

And just in case edit your first post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred.


When we found the ticket stuck to the window it was black. Nothing could be read from the paper. We went to reception just to make sure it wasn't a joke. They said it wouldn't be a joke and we'd have to get in touch with Premier Parking to sort it out. It was apparently nothing to do with them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 11:46
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So premier inn are allowing Premier Parking to operate on their land without any sort of contract? Sounds like staff couldn't be arsed. Raise that complaint to head office.

Could be that as you had paid the hotel for parking then you parking contract was with them and not the people running amuck in the parking spaces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 20:40
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,075
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (slowmo @ Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 10:11) *
Is this an OK reply?

To Whom it may concern,

In reference to your first letter received on the 5th October 2018. Parking was paid for in full. The parking bays are very tight, and the driver's vehicle is very wide, as the driver didn’t want to cause an obstruction to other vehicles, the driver parked over the white line. The driver was very careful to choose an end bay that didn’t have a bay next to it. The driver was also carful to choose a bay that wouldn’t cause an obstruction to other road users.

The driver would like for you to provide measurements of the parking bay in question. Also, would like to see any picture you may have taken.

Further to the charge of £100, now £130 with admin fee: The fee wasn’t made visible at the PDT.

I think you're missing the point. The PPC does not care one whit about "fairness" or how reasonable the driver's actions were. All that matters to them is that the terms and conditions were not strictly complied with. In fact, their entire business model depends on people falling into their trap and becoming liable to pay their exorbitant "parking charges".

QUOTE
The parking bays are very tight,

Total coincidence!

QUOTE
the driver's vehicle is very wide,

Excellent!

QUOTE
the driver didn’t want to cause an obstruction to other vehicles, the driver parked over the white line

Awwww.... Ka-Ching!

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 21:10
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You missed out the bit encouraging them to 'bring it on' in the form of a BW Legal robo-claim...

It wasn't really tongue in cheek, the idea was to show PPS that you are on a forum and clearly, you have sussed their methods, and you are not the victim you'd otherwise appear to be with an 'ordinary' appeal.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 08:10
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



By the sounds of it all I'm doing is dragging out the inevitable. By letting it carry on the amount I owe will increase making it more financially attractive to take me to court. No one here seems to be filling me with confidence that I can fight this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 08:13
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The amount you owe AS THE KEEPER cannot increase other than court charges (about £75)

Have you contacted hotel head office yet?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:32
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,075
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (slowmo @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:10) *
By the sounds of it all I'm doing is dragging out the inevitable. By letting it carry on the amount I owe will increase making it more financially attractive to take me to court. No one here seems to be filling me with confidence that I can fight this.

No, I was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that you can reason with a PPC. You can't. But you can fight them, which many, many people here have done successfully in the past. There is nothing "inevitable" about it. But YOU have to want to fight them, and if you do, there is ample help available here and on MSE. Most people, however, just roll over and let the PPCs win. And that's why these rapacious parasites continue to exist...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



Why would I be contacting the hotel, or head office? How could this help?

I made contact with reception to ascertain if it was a real ticket, or a joke. The ticket was black and couldn't be read. They said the parking has nothing to do with them and that I should go and have a look for a sign with there telephone on in the car park.

I've not made any contact with them directly yet.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:32) *
QUOTE (slowmo @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:10) *
By the sounds of it all I'm doing is dragging out the inevitable. By letting it carry on the amount I owe will increase making it more financially attractive to take me to court. No one here seems to be filling me with confidence that I can fight this.

No, I was just trying to disabuse you of the notion that you can reason with a PPC. You can't. But you can fight them, which many, many people here have done successfully in the past. There is nothing "inevitable" about it. But YOU have to want to fight them, and if you do, there is ample help available here and on MSE. Most people, however, just roll over and let the PPCs win. And that's why these rapacious parasites continue to exist...

--Churchmouse


So what should be my next step if I want to try and put a stop to this without making payment to them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 09:49
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,904
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So reception can't be arsed to continue with the complaint, not unusual. So you complain to head office about a customer being charged because of the lack of proper facilities. If the parking company are there then who is giving them permission to be there?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



What we're trying to say is that someone has contracted with the parking company, they cannot operate there without a contract from the landholder.

It's probably the hotel.

That makes the hotel (or chain) the principal in a principal/agent relationship with the parking company. Under the laws of agency the Principal is responsible and liable for the actions of their agent, the parking company.

So, if the parking company has contracted with the hotel, then the hotel is liable, responsible, and can tell the parking company what to do.

Get onto head office.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:17
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:49) *
So reception can't be arsed to continue with the complaint, not unusual. So you complain to head office about a customer being charged because of the lack of proper facilities. If the parking company are there then who is giving them permission to be there?


I've just spoken with head office. Even though they told me to use this car park, they say it has nothing to do with them. I need to sort this out with premium parking solutions directly they said. I'm not sure who the land owner is, but if I did, again I'm not sure how this would help?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:21
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,284
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Ask them to tell you the name of the owner/landholder of that car park, as they are implying it's definitely not them.

Or go to the Land Registry and pay for the information.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:30
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,691
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



OR ask the council who pays the Non domestic Rates for the car park
OP - you need to work out now. Do you want to fight or not? If Not, then pay up. Theres no point trying to help people who dont want to fight. If you WANT to fight, realise there is no simple solution, no one stop to this, you will need to [ut in some effort.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
slowmo
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 10:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,478



Of course I don't want to pay, but at the same time I don't want to hang this out and then end up paying more. This is the address: Southernhay Gardens, Exeter, EX1 1S.

From my research they actually own this car park. I'm not the only one who's been done for using this car park. It's all over trip advisor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Thursday, 13th December 2018 - 12:18
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.