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  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sun, 13 Aug 2017 - 09:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 11:33
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 11:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 14:11
Post #22


Member


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



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

This post has been edited by kernow2017: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 14:17
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Scan_2pdf.pdf ( 545.26K ) Number of downloads: 17
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 24 Sep 2017 - 21:07
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 20:41
Post #24


Member


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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Thu, 28 Sep 2017 - 16:05
Post #25


Member


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



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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 06:57
Post #26


Member


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



Should I send them another letter signing with my name and company? Or is it too late now? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 07:29
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,235
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



It is never too late for the Keeper to prove they are they Keeper, and the RK is not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Basher
post Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 12:35
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 470
Joined: 13 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,950



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.

This post has been edited by Dennis Basher: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 12:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:07
Post #29


Member


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



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!

This post has been edited by kernow2017: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 16:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 20:21
Post #30


Member


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



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/k...zpsdvnal1q9.jpg

This post has been edited by kernow2017: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 20:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 13 Nov 2017 - 21:16
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 18:43
Post #32


Member


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



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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 18:51
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



This one will be interesting. their email in September was misleading/negligent and deserves exposing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 14:47
Post #34


Member


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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 17:07
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sun, 19 Nov 2017 - 18:44
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,854
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



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


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:37
Post #37


Member


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



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.

This post has been edited by kernow2017: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:44
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,235
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 13:38
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,396
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: Hampshire
Member No.: 16,066



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


--------------------
Cabbyman 8 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2017
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 14:33
Post #40


Member


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



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%20H...%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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 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: Thursday, 22nd February 2018 - 22:37
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.