PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Premier Park - Leaving site
boulbysaur
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 20:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 13 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,739



Hi all, currently in the process of fighting a leaving site PCN from premier park on behalf of an elderly colleague of mine. It was on a company vehicle and which is registered under the company name. Offence is apparently walking off site however my colleague says he never left.

I initially submitted the following appeal;

QUOTE
Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 I am exercising my rights as the registered keeper by appealing this claim for the following reasons:

1. You allege ‘Driver – Passengers observed leaving site.’ However, you have provided no evidence to support this claim.
2. No evidence provided that the driver ever left the site, or that even if they did, no action was taken to inform the driver
3. Signage displayed on site is forbidding meaning there is no service on offer and hence no contract can be formed or even exist.
4. Signage offers no definition of ‘this site’ or ‘on site.’ meaning the signs are ambiguous and cannot possibly create a binding contract, as there is no certainty of terms

Should you wish to further correspond with me on this matter, I will require photographic/CCTV evidence with time stamp of the alleged ‘driver-passengers’ having left and returning to the site, as well as the named vehicle entering, staying in and leaving the car park with ‘driver-passengers’ in car within 35 days or I will regard the matter as closed.

If you do reject this request and insist upon wasting my time with a further appeal I will claim my expenses from you and my time at the published court rate. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but would include the cost of stamps, envelopes, legal fees and travel expenses. By continuing to pursue me you agree by your conduct to pay these costs if I am successful.


This was rejected as they said I haven't disclosed I am the driver and no proof of ownership.

I then sent them a copy of the company V5 which they said wasn't proof and I would need to disclose the driver.

Following that the company received the NTK which was forwarded to myself. I then sent them the NTK and the original appeal however received the following response;

QUOTE
We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent online appeal, on behalf of the driver, appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle.

In order for us to fully assess your appeal we must request that the details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention are supplied; this must include their full name and serviceable postal address. If you are unwilling or unable to provide these details the registered keeper of this vehicle will remain liable for this PCN.

This information should be provided by 3rd June 2020. Please note, we are unable to place this PCN on hold until these details are received. Please be advised that Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.

As you have evidenced by providing the V5 document for this vehicle, you, personally, are not the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, as a company name is detailed. We accept no liability, nor do we enter into any contract with you, for the charges you mention.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence, please visit www.pcnpayments.com

Please respond by return or by filling in the Transfer of Liability form on the reverse of the PCN and posting it to Premier Park, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG


Not sure whats next on this one as never fought a leaving site PCN

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 4)
Advertisement
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 20:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 20:36
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,135
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Ignore it. Have a look at the VCS v Ibbotson case the toothbrush case.. VCS lost.

The contract is with the driver so passengers leaving the site is immaterial, there was no contract with them

Post up the redacted NTK, but leave dates.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 31 May 2020 - 20:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 31 May 2020 - 21:19
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,921
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




Not sure whats next on this one as never fought a leaving site PCN

Or any private or council penalty by the looks of it!

Let's just sort out who's who.

As the driver wrote to the PPC - lifting a rag bag of phrases from goodness knows where - the vehicle was presumably issued with a Notice to Driver at the site. Yes?

The driver did not disclose who they were in their first communication.

The PPC did not buy the argument - hardly surprising.

The registered keeper received a Notice to Keeper. They've wrongly passed this to the driver. Chaos will follow unless they follow procedure.

The RK, who unless they declare the details of the actual keeper - who happens to be the driver - can have the parking charges enforced against them in court. Passing the NTK to the driver simply confuses matters.

Your friend has no standing and the second submission was effectively disregarded.

Next they'll pursue the company. I suspect they like corporate keepers, I imagine their hit rate is quite high.
And they'll likely panic and pay.
And your friend would be out of pocket or out of favour or both.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
boulbysaur
post Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 20:50
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 13 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,739



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 31 May 2020 - 22:19) *
Not sure whats next on this one as never fought a leaving site PCN

Or any private or council penalty by the looks of it!

Let's just sort out who's who.

As the driver wrote to the PPC - lifting a rag bag of phrases from goodness knows where - the vehicle was presumably issued with a Notice to Driver at the site. Yes?

The driver did not disclose who they were in their first communication.

The PPC did not buy the argument - hardly surprising.

The registered keeper received a Notice to Keeper. They've wrongly passed this to the driver. Chaos will follow unless they follow procedure.

The RK, who unless they declare the details of the actual keeper - who happens to be the driver - can have the parking charges enforced against them in court. Passing the NTK to the driver simply confuses matters.

Your friend has no standing and the second submission was effectively disregarded.

Next they'll pursue the company. I suspect they like corporate keepers, I imagine their hit rate is quite high.
And they'll likely panic and pay.
And your friend would be out of pocket or out of favour or both.


I tried to start the fight by reading through a few threads on this site and the "defence" was taken from another thread on this forum. Tried to do it without starting a fresh post.

I take it the best thing from here is for my employer to pass on the driver details.

Timeline is as follows

1) PCN struck to window
2) Appeal lodged
3) Appeal rejected
4) NTK
5) Appeal Lodged again
6) Appeal rejected again
7) Current point
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 1 Jun 2020 - 21:57
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,135
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So what was in the NTK? Is this a lease car?
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, 10th July 2020 - 23:16
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.