Hi there,
My SO has just handed me a PCN he has received from Premier Park as he is the RK of the vehicle in question. This charge if for being in a private car park for 5 minutes. I wondering if you could tell me if this PCN meets the conditions on POFA? I have a niggling feeling that it does and we are quite distressed about this as we are on low income as I am chronically ill and can barely afford to pay for food so certainly cannot afford to pay this. I would like to appeal but am disheartened that we won't have a chance if they have adhered to POFA. I have included a scan of the PCN and have redacted my SO's details for our protection. We also went to visit the car park to look at the signs, I will include the images. As you can see, this car park includes two residents parking spaces, the PCN shows 4 photographs of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park with close ups to the reg, but provides no evidence that the vehicle was parked in a Vets4Pets parking bay. I intended on refusing to provide drivers details and challenging on the basis that they cannot provide evidence that the driver parked in the Vets4Pets bay instead of the residential bays. I can say unequivocally to you guys that the driver would have not parked there intentionally had they seen signage but on inspecting signage I expect that it would be considered clear enough and so I am very concerned about this. Thank you.
Here is a link to the gallery with all the files:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/36v06ci06/
There is a grace period so the driver can read and then either accept the contract or leave, also it looks like the driver could not meet the requirements and so the signs are forbidding so no contract could have been formed. So you need to get the IPA guidelines and see what the grace period is as a start, the BPA's is 10 mins.
I was reading back of PCN where it referred to Independent Appeals Service not POPLA so I assumed IPC, so they are in BPA so use their 10 mins grace period from their code of practice.
Yes post up a copy of the appeal here first for checking.
As stated use the grace period read the signs and left.
Premier Park use POPLA. They are a member of the BPA so a 10min grace period applies. Entering and leaving within 5 mins is sufficient to argue that no contract with the driver was established. Attempting to transfer liability using Pofa to the RK is invalid as no contract was formed with the driver. In any case do not name the driver!
DO NOT PAY THEM ANYTHING! You will need to appeal but PP will turn it down. They turn them all down so that doesn't count for anything other than the PCN hasn't been cancelled yet.
Appeals service...where, if they cancel the charge on the grounds I have laid out, I reserve the right to invoic you for my time spent on the POPLA appeal that you would have unecessarioly put me through. In short, either cancel the charge, or be charged £30 by POPLA to be told the same, and expect my bill for costs at £19 per hour to follow
Only put the last in if you are feeling ballsy
Hi Guys,
So we got an email response from Premier Park that completely ignored all the points that I raised, this is their response:
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.
We note your comments and must refer you to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Schedule 4 - Recovery of unpaid Parking Charges. This is available to view online at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
We must therefore 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 UK 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 22nd June 2018. Please note, Premier Park Limited will not reply to any correspondence until after the above date, if the requested information is not provided.
If we do not receive this information by the date given, the registered keeper of the vehicle at the date of event will be held liable.
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.
Yours Sincerely,
The Appeals Team
Premier Park Ltd
How is the best way to respond to this? Thanks.
Don't respond at all. You've made your appeal points, and they've chosen to ignore that and pester you for the driver's name.
Wait for their next response. They have 35 days from when you submitted your appeal.
Yes, the BPA Code of Practise gives them 35 days to respond. It can then be assumed that the appeal was successful.
Why respond? you've already sent in your appeal and they are playing silly b**gers,
No need to respond to that. If you do it might be tead by them that you are worried and might pay up with a little more pressure. Let them show their hand.
Most things that Premier Park is absurd so don't read much into their response. They always reject appeals because it costs them very little and it might result in some people paying. Stick to your guns at Popla who will probably reject it as well.
Premier Park puts a lot of effort into its POPLA evidence packs so make sure that you do
It also has a habit of objecting to decisions it doesn't like and, although POPLA says that its decisions are final, has been known to have them over-turned
I don't know if Premier has particularly favourable treatment at POPLA but one assessor rejected an appeal for the inventive reason that a car is not a vehicle (and wasn't subject to the byelaws)
It was just intended to give you the realistic view of how PP appeals go. It doesn't mean that you will have to pay them and that you won't eventually be successful. They just keep applying pressure until people give up and pay.
A judge would probably not share those ridiculous POPLA assessments of the case!
Quite a few Premier Park POPLA cases have been lost on here and on MSE but no-one pays them.
Search here or MSE for Premier POPLA lost (obviously never search a parking fine forum including the word 'park!) and you'll find threads to restore your confidence that a daft POPLA decision will mean nowt.
At the car park they are using ANPR cameras, whilst the signage does state they use cameras, it makes no mention of them being ANPR, are they required to state that on the signs?
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.
The signs must state that they are using cameras to calculate the parking time from entry
This is what I have so far for the POPLA appeal, not perfect I know, if there is anything I need to take out or add please let me know. Not really sure how to end it, would like to tie it all up into a neat bow:
"To whom it may concern,
I am writing in order to appeal a Parking Charge Notice that was issued to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number XXXXXXX. The Parking Charge Notice was issued for this vehicle entering a Vets 4 Pets Car Park on the 11th May 2018, the driver of the vehicle entered the car park at 20:03 on the 11th May and exited at 20:08 on the 11th May, thus being in the car park for a total of 5 minutes. As the keeper I would like to challenge the reason for Premier Park rejecting my initial appeal due to the reason “As you were not a Vets4Pets customer” as an insufficient reason. I wish to challenge the grounds on which Premier Park have issued the PCN as it does not adhere to the British Parking Association guidelines. Premier Park are a member of the BPA and thus are required to provide drivers with a grace period of 10 minutes in order to read signage and either accept or not accept the terms and conditions of parking on the private land. I would like to state that Premier Park have no grounds to issue a PCN as no contract was established with the driver. The driver read the terms and conditions of the car park within the grace period and left, Premier Park attempting to transfer liability to me as the registered keeper under POFA 2012 is invalid as no contract was ever formed with the driver. Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 it states:
13 Grace periods
13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.
13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.
13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display for enforcement officer to inspect.
13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
I would also like to challenge the PCN as signage at the entrance of the car park is inappropriate and does not meet BPA' guidelines, the entrance sign is too small and does not take into account the anticipated speed of the vehicle approaching the car park, the entrance sign contains no Group 1 text and any Group 2 or subsequent text comes no where near meeting the minimum capital height of 60mm for a parking area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road with no barrier control, therefore the entrance sign is not legible for drivers without needing to look away from the road ahead or entering car park to read further signage. The entrance sign also does not state that “terms and conditions apply” which it is required to. The entrance sign applied by Premier Park invites drivers to read further signage within the car park and therefor a grace period absolutely should be upheld. Under section 18 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 it states:
18 Signs
18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use. A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance • when the car park is very small • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted
18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.
18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations. See paragraphs 2(2), 2(3) and 12 of the Schedule.
18.5 The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and information.
18.6 If you provide a telephone line to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate.
18.7 You should display the BPA’s AOS logos at all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly.
18.8 Important: you may have to give other information on signs and notices under companies and consumer protection law and other legislation.
18.9 So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.
18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.
Under Appendix B “Entrance Signs” of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 it states:
Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made. Ideally the AOS logo should be incorporated to indicate that the parking is managed under a Code of Practice. We consider it to be good practice that the landowner’s name is on the sign, but we understand that in some cases the owner may not want to be mentioned. You may also place your ‘private parking’ banner above your company details and below your terms and conditions. If one of the following standard wordings applies to your parking area you should use it. If not, you may alter the wording to fit the situation. Words in square brackets may be left out. There must be at least one item from Group 1. But no more than three items from Group 1 should appear before, and more prominently than, text from Group 2. You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where drivers can find more details – this will usually be on the other notices in the parking area. If there are different payment terms for blue badge holders, you should also show these. The words ‘blue badge holders’ should generally be replaced by the blue badge symbol (exactly as shown in the Traffic Signs Regulations Guidance Document, not a local version).
Group 1
Pay and display [except/free for blue badge holders]
[x minutes’/hour’s/hours’] free parking [for [business name] customers only]
Pay on exit
Pay [on foot/at machine] when leaving
Parking for [business name] customers only Permit holders only
Group 2
Charges apply [after this][after x minutes/hours]
Private land
Terms and conditions apply
See the notice[s] [in the car park] for details
Text size
The capital height for Group 1 text will depend on the approach speed of traffic. Group 2 text should be at least 50% of this size. All other text should be smaller than 50% of the Group 1 text size. However, the name of the car park or parking area, or a brief welcome message (if included), may be larger.
The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.
I challenge the PCN being issued on the grounds of unauthorised entry as no mention of entering the car park as being seen as unauthorised entry or trespassing is mentioned on any Premier Park sign. The owners of the car park have made no attempts to mitigate losses by installing barriers or deterrents of any kind at the entrance of the car park. A “P” symbol is utilised on the entrance signage as well as the word “Welcome” and therefore welcomes drivers to use the space as a car park and does not deter against trespassing.
In my initial appeal to Premier Park I challenged that no photographic evidence had been provided to show that the driver of the vehicle had parked in a Vets4Pets bay. The photographic evidence provided were two images of the front and rear of the vehicle in motion with the headlights and taillights on, with two further close ups of the number plate. Within the same car park there are eight Vets4Pets parking bays and two residential bays which are not owned by Vets4Pets. No evidence was provided by Premier Park to counter this. The onus is on Premier Park to provide evidence that the driver parked the vehicle in question in the Vets4Pets parking bays as opposed to the residential bays, there is also no evidence to suggest that if the driver did park the vehicle, as Premier Park insists, that the driver ever left the vehicle and I ask that Premier Park provide this evidence as per Section 20.5a and Section 22.3 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018:
20.5a When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.
22.3 If the motorist asks for it, you must make available any photographic evidence you have.
Premier Park are using ANPR camera technology to monitor vehicles entering and exiting the car park, whilst they mention use of cameras on signage, they do not mention anywhere about the use of ANPR technology, Section 21.1 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018:
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
And to surmise I would like to finally state that charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable for a period of 5 minutes."
Here is a link to all the photographic evidence I will submit:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/36v06ci06/
Thanks Guys!
I think you will win on grace periods because 5 mins in and out is ridiculous and specifically against the BPA CoP.
I would just as the usual 'no landowner authority' POPLA appeal point that you find in any other PP ANPR POPLA appeal, as a safety net.
When the time comes, post up Premier's evidence of land-owner authority
Its contracts often contain the clause
When they don't, Premier has a track record of forged names and signatures
Yes, so must roving standing specific fiscally right to issue in their own name AND take to court, as per cop.
You require them to prove standing with the landowner, full copy of contract it's names left unredacted
Mmmm. That looks a bit suspicious. I wouldn't trust PP as far as I could throw them.
Thats not suspiscious. Thats perjury.
Perjury indeed. They faked a solicitor's letter with me. PP cannot be trusted.
I was at Parkex last year, the parking industry's trade show
Among all the debt collectors and bailiffs, the only stand that gave me such creeps that I had to walk past on the other side of the aisle was Premier's
What is the standard amount of time it takes for the operator to provide POPLA with their evidence pack? I submitted the POPLA appeal 12 days ago. It's making me nervous.
It can take several weeks so no need to panic. PP put alot of effort into their POPLA appeals and so typically take a bit longer to compile.
Why on earth is it making you nervous?
From memory they have 28 days. Given you cannot do anything to speed them up, just ignore it for now
Rememebr you will need to comment on teir evidence, so check that an email from POPLA doesnt go to your junk file.
Perjury? PP are saying that?
Yawn. Its PP.
I've just had a read of the British Parking Association response when Premier was reported for the fake statements
After investigation it was concluded that there wasn't a breach of the BPA Code of Practice but Premier was advised on presentation
The reasoning appears to be that **** is authorised to sign on behalf of the land-owner doesn't exclude Premier staff that have been authorised
The BPA did, however, concede that it was unable to identify the person named on the witness statements and, for a short time afterward, POPLA assessors were finding unusual reasons to accept Premier appeals when the integrity of the witness statements had been questioned
In my POPLA appeal PP's evidence pack was surprisingly long but mainly comprising attachments such as the landowner's contract and logs of the pay machine to try to prove that I hadn't paid which I had. The landowner's contract was interesting because it was out of validity and POPLA just ignored that!
After initial robo letters which clearly had taken no effort to write and ignoring all my requests for information they bombarded POPLA with everything they could dig up to try and win. Their tactic is clearly to try to win at POPLA and then apply pressure to pay up. After POPLA they resort to more bald robo letters until they eventually give up if they meet resistance.
If there is something worthy of complaint then yes you should complain. However don't hold you breath for the answer you would like!
Speak of the devil, PP have submitted their evidence packs, I kinda feel like they have shot themselves in the foot with this. They say that a 5 minute grace period should be enough because it is a small car park (not taking into account drivers mobility and reading comprehension) but surely a different grace period from the BPA COC would have to have been agreed upon with the BPA previously? They also say that all the parking spaces are for Vets4Pets customers when thats is untrue, two are residential and they have even themselves provided photographs of the residential parking spaces. I ask for a unredacted contract with landowner and they have given a redacted copy signed by managing agent. Nevertheless, I suppose this could still go either way. Here are redacted copies of the two PDFs which for some reason they have uploaded both 4 times, I have not spotted any difference between the uploads so why they have done that, god knows. Will have to upload PDFs separately.
Just trying to find a way to reduce the file size of the second PDF.
Couldn't get the file size down small enough so here it is:
http://docdro.id/5w1DUS1
Can't work out why but something about that contract doesn't look right
There's a thread on MSE regarding Torquay Marina where Premier has presented a contract with M & M Properties Ltd instead of MDL Developments
The contract says that M&M is either the land-owner or authorised by the land-owner
The Land Registry can inform you who owns the property but that won't help if M&M is simply "authorised"
Could phone London Clancy and ask how to contact M&M
A point to make in rebuttal is that Premier says that it operates a 5 minutes grace period
As their own evidence states that you were there for 5 minutes, not 6, you didn't exceed the grace period and the PCN wasn't correctly issued
Original Contract for a year. Have they showed that it has been continued?
Have they shown that the managing agent has the right contract? Nothing to show that.
Signs are forbidding, both the original signs and the Premier Parking ones. No offer of parking to Non Clients therefore no contract = no breach and therefore there can be no charge for breach. Only claim can be for trespass by the landowner.
You insist that they need to evidence that it has been rolled over.
Looks like a typical PP evidence pack with lots of photos if signs. Actually the fact that there are so many means that 5 mins to read them all carefully and decide if the driver wishes to stay or not is not unreasonable. In any case you have not exceeded their 5 minute grace period!
The landowner contract is typical of PP and statements about rolling contracts. If it has been rolled over then they should have absolutely no difficulty in proving it! However, POPLA will probably gloss over that important point.
So your rebuttal needs to be simple:
1) the operators evidence pack confirms that no breach of terms took place, as the alleged overstay was 5 minutes, and they claim to operate a 5 minute grace period. The PCN was not correctly issued and therefore the appeal must be upheld
2) If POPLA disagree then as a MINIMUM ten minutes grace period is required anyway, this breach of the BPA CoP means the PCN was not correctly issued and, again, the appela must be upheld
3) The supposed contract has expired and the operator has not provided strict proof that it was extended. This is a breach of the BPA CoP and the appeal must succeed.
Makes no odds, you won't be paying. no need to cross your fingers, you might lose but so what? PP win quite a few POPLA appeals and people here just ignore them and sit tight.
Search this forum and MSE parking form, for:
POPLA lost Premier
if it happens. No coming back thinking you have to pay, if this is lost!
Absolutely right. You will not be paying anything irrespective of whether your POPLA appeal is upheld or not!
Hey guys, I was just wondering how long it usually takes POPLA to make a decision? It's been 24 days since I submitted my comments to the operators evidence pack. Thanks.
Presumably the website still says pending?
If so, then theyre being slow
Dont panic, nothing you can do about it.
My appeal was unsuccessful, I'm seriously angry right now, as clearly POPLA are not an unbiased organisation. The bit that angers me the most is this "The appellant has not provided me with any explanation or evidence to suggest why the motorist required a grace period." Erm, they require a grace period because it's in the BPA COC!!!
Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the motorist parked at the site without the authorisation to do so.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the entrance sign does not mention the entering of the car park to be seen as unauthorised entry or trespassing. He states that the owners of the car park have made no attempt to mitigate losses by installing barriers or deterrents of any kind at the entrance of the car park. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the entrance sign. The appellant believes that the operator does not have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on the land and does not have any proprietary interest. Therefore, he believes that the operator has no standing to make contracts with drivers. The appellant has requested to see a copy of the operator’s contract with the landowner. The appellant believes that a charge of £100 for a period of 5 minutes is punitive and unreasonable. The appellant states that the motorist was not allowed a grace period in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states that the operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. The appellant states that the operator does not have any evidence to demonstrate that the motorist parked in a Vets4Pets bay. The appellant states that the signs do not mention that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology is in use. The appellant has provided sections from the BPA Code of practice and photographs of the signage at the site.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The terms and conditions of the site state: “Vets4Pets car park. Vets4pets customers only. Vets4Pets customers must enter their full, correct vehicle registration inside the practice for free parking only for the duration of their stay. Maximum duration of each stay 2 hours. Non Vets4Pets customers parked on this car park will receive a PCN. No stopping or waiting. If you cannot register for any reason do not park. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist parked at the site without the authorisation to do so. Images from the operator’s ANPR system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 20:03 and exited at 20:08 on the day in question, staying for a total of five minutes. A screenshot of its vehicle log has also been provided, showing that the appellant’s vehicle was not registered to park at the site that day. The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. The appellant states that the operator has failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle. The appellant’s case is that the entrance sign does not mention the entering of the car park to be seen as unauthorised entry or trespassing. He states that the owners of the car park have made no attempt to mitigate losses by installing barriers or deterrents of any kind at the entrance of the car park. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the entrance sign. The appellant believes that a charge of £100 for a period of 5 minutes is punitive and unreasonable. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. The operator and the appellant have provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site, along with a site map demonstrating the distribution of the signs throughout the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions and the amount of parking charge to the attention of motorists and I consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park their vehicle. The purpose of the entrance sign is solely to advise motorists that parking restrictions apply at the site, which I am satisfied that it does. Overall, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. The appellant believes that the operator does not have the authority to issue PCNs on the land and does not have any proprietary interest. Therefore, he believes that the operator has no standing to make contracts with drivers. The appellant has requested to see a copy of the operator’s contract with the landowner. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its contract with the landowner. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the operator has the sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. The appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. The appellant states that the motorist was not allowed a grace period in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. In order to form a contract with an operator, a motorist must be allowed a reasonable amount of time in order to review the terms and conditions and attempt to comply with them. The appellant has not provided me with any explanation or evidence to suggest why the motorist required a grace period. Therefore, I am unable to determine whether this applies. The appellant states that the signs do not mention that ANPR technology is in use. I refer to the signage, which states: “Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes”. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is made clear to motorists. The appellant states that the operator does not have any evidence to demonstrate that the motorist parked in a Vets4Pets bay. I note that this may be the case, however the motorist remained at the small Vets4Pets site for five minutes. Therefore, I am satisfied that they parked. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist parked at the site without the authorisation to do so, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
No chance of reading a wall of text
Complain to POPLA LEAD ASSESSOR
They cannot require an explanation for a grace period. The grace perio d is required. POPLA has made a procedural error by making up a requirement for the appellant that is not required in the BPA CoP.
POPLA quite often ignore key information. Its annoying but thats what happens. You need to move on to the next stage in a positive and determined frame of mind. Grumbling about what POPLA should have done will get you nowhere.
Today we have received a letter from the debt collection agency ZZPS Limited. £100 plus £70 administration fee. Are there any steps I need to take or do I ignore? One question I do have is are Premier Park allowed to pass my details onto ZZPS under GDPR?
I also wrote a letter to Mr Gallagher at POPLA which was ignored. My request to escalate it to the lead adjudicator via email was refused.
Whenever you post here, with a query - do smoe searching first!
ZZPS , like all debt colelctors, are ignroed. File and ignore. Totally ignore.
Yes of course they can pass the data along. Thats an old query and setttled.
Premier can pass your details to ZZPS as ZZPS are a sub-contracted agent of Premier and they need the data in order to perform their service of generally harassing people.
However, ZZPS are powerless, cannot take legal action (only Premier or their solicitors can do that), won't call at your house, and can be ignored.
The only thing NOT to ignore are a Letter Before Claim sent from Premier or their solicitors, or an actual Court Claim form. Come back here if you get those.
You can keep trying POPLA if you like but you'd get more joy talking to a wall.
No, that isnt what youve found
THey are data controllers
They can pass info to Data Priocessors to process for the reasons specified in their access request to the DVLA
They only need permission if they SELL the data. MIL cases, usually.
PP do not 100% do court. ZZPS do nothing. Ever. They CANT do anything. They can write scary sounding letters, tha tare entirely full of hot air.
It isnt hundreds of pounds in court fees. They can, at most, charge £!00 - £25 to file, £50 sol fee to file the claim, £25 hearing fee. THey can only charge the amount on the NTK when they dont know the drivers identity. Certainly not the COMPLETELY MADE UP £70!!!!! They added!
DO
NOT
PAY.
Ignore the debt collectors. They have no authority and can be safely ignored. You might wish to write to the PPC to let them know that you will not be paying them or their debt collectors anything and that any further correspondence other than a formal LBA will be ignored.
In which case sit back and wait for their next move but keeping a keen eye in case they send you a LBA. It is good to advise them in advance that you will ignore letters from debt collectors just in case they have the cheek to try and bill you for their services!
I doubt very much if you will find a court case over not giving the grace period, these PPC would be reluctant to go to court on this issue alone.
Hey guys, we have just received this (please click link), is this a Letter Before Action? Also I like how they claim that the PCN was issued because the driver didn't enter the number plate on the system and they have also claimed that I as the registered keeper have name myself as the driver, which is a lie. I have named no one as the driver.
[link removed]
That is an LBA, so needs responding to.
What does the research youve done tell you about responding?
Usually you use this chance to ask for a list of useful documetns. YOu can also SAR them, as they MUST respond to that.
You have left the PCN number in the body of the letter. Check it through again.
Not seen the LBA as you have now removed the link. Have you checked that it is a fully compliant LBA? If not then bombard with requests for anything that is missing or any and every document you can think of. Make them work hard. They are hoping you will cave in and won't want to spend time and money responding. Point out to them the errors in the LBA such as no named driver etc.
There is much more to a compliant LBA than the two forms you mention. Make them work hard to provide all the documentation that you are entitled to ask for.
As the driver has not been named then yes you should remind them of the requirements of POFA especially if they haven't complied with them!
Yes you absolutely can argue for grace periods! The sign is quite ridiculous if taken literally because the driver would have no time in which to enter the car park, read the signs and then determine if they wish to form a contract.
I understand that you are not feeling confident at this moment. That is a normal reaction. However, remember that they have issued a LBA which is intended to make you feel like that with the hope that you will cave in and pay. However it does not mean that you should or that you would lose if they followed it through to court. Remember that they lose money if they go to court! What sort of business wants to lose money? The more you make it difficult for them by asking for lots of information in response to the LBA the more likely it is that they will put it in the 'too hard file'.
Yes of course you use grace periods. Of course their lba isn't compliant - it will not, absolutely not, contain the required documents outlining their claim.
Repost the LBA but properly redacted.
Although I have seen it, the others are working in the dark, which isn't much use to you.
Even if the signs say parking period starts on entry then if you can't read the sign as you are driving in then how can you agree to something you have not/ cannot read.
...at an unknown period in the past, as you dont have a clock running from when you entered the site, and didnt know yo uneeded to know to be looking at your clcok while drivintg in.
Heres the LBA redacted fully with original PCN, they sent the letter with reply form, financial statement and another copy of the PCN. I'll have another read over the Pre-Action Protocols to see if I can spot how this is not compliant but if anyone spots anything that would be helpful. Is there any point in making an argument in a response to this? i.e. Box D I dispute the debt because... Should I go over everything again here? No contract, Grace period, Signage, Landowner Contract etc. With all my evidence such as photographs of signs? Thanks guys.
https://www.scribd.com/document/389672657/PremierParkDebt-Redacted?secret_password=fyjST4kc9rXbop0q63qd
Yes, no harm is saying why you dispute the debt, andthat unless they provide documents, your position cannot be reconsidered.
I've read through the Pre Action Protocols again and can't spot any way in which this LBA isn't compliant.
DOes it provide a copy of all the documetns they use to support their claim?
It will not, as the firm issuing the LBAs does not even have the documents in thier possesion.
Sorry, didnt realise they had issued this. uusually its Gladstones.
What documents YOU require them to send is the key - at a minimum a copy of the alleged contract (So, that would be signs), a copy of the contract showing their authority to operate on land they have no possession of, copies of the supposed documents already sent such as NtD/NtK/Reminders etc
Likely PP havent got a clue about driver vs keeper and are just hoping you wont notice
You require them to provide their evidence as to the drivers identity being the same as the keeper, and note that of course tehre is no assumption availablt to them - they msut provide actual proof.
Yes, lay out the basis for such a counterclaim. (you cant just say "damages" - damages for WHAT)
You assume wrong
The first woudl be costs of the CLAIM, not a counterclaim
These are restricted in small claims. You can usually only claim any costs to attend a *hearing*, and ONLY if you can show the Claimant was unreasonable under CPR27.14 can yo uget payment for any other costs.
Stree? You would need to prove it.
How about
Misuse of personal data (Vidal-Hall V Google)
harassment? (Ferguson V British Gas)
Don't get yourself distracted with claiming costs. You need to focus on responding to the LBA. It is one of the better LBA's I have seen from PP. They appear to be improving but it is not perfect. They even admit in the letter that they have not provided you with all the required documents! So make them work hard. Ask for everything they have listed plus landowner contract, photos of ALL signs and locations, detailed map of the car park etc plus anything else you can think of. They are hoping that you don't ask for anything! Make them sweat.
The LBA claims that you formed a contract which you didn't. This is crucial. How can the driver break a contract that he didn't form? So dispute it! Also they claim that the driver has been named but you say he hasn't so dispute it. They say the RK named the driver but you say he didn't so dispute it! They say the driver didn't enter VRN details. He didn't because he didn't park and form a contract! So dispute it!
Editing my previous comment, again, heres my LBA response, I've taken bit for here and there including a very helpful template from Eljayjay on another post. I'm trying to make their live as difficult as possible, feedback will be very much appreciated.
To Whom it may concern,
Thank you for your letter dated 24th September 2018.
In response to your letter before claim I would like to bring to your attention that I have attempted to enter into communication with you about why I dispute the alleged debt, please refer to the letter I sent dated 17th August. Unlike the claims in your letter we have received no other correspondence other than your generic rejection of my appeal, a letter from ZZPS Limited acting on your behalf to collect alleged debt and now subsequently this letter before claim. We have received no reminders or any other form of communication from you, therefore you have been unwilling to enter into any sort of resolution over the alleged debt. However, your letter contains insufficient documents in support of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago as the 23rd May 2018. It also fails to provide a copy of an un-redacted copy of the contract that you should hold with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent) to cover the date in which the PCN was issued. This was requested as far back as the 28th June 2018. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence you intend to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence other than the PCN.
This action is a clear breach of your pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols. As you must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.
Nobody is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. It is required that you provide the documentation you intend to rely on, therefore to comply with these obligations I request you send me the following information/documents:
Confirmation of whether you are pursuing me as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle;
If you pursue me as the driver I require explicit evidence that the driver has been named in correspondence and explicit proof that you know the identity of the driver;
A copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;
Evidence of ownership of the land;
The parking contract between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to you to charge for parking on the land - I note that an invalid out of date redacted copy of a contract was provided to POPLA with an option for a rolling contract extension. You failed to provide evidence that this contract had been extended to cover the period in which the PCN was issued;
If the land is owned and/or occupied by a company and the parking contract has not been signed by a director of the company (readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House), corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the signatory has been authorised to enter into the parking contract on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land;
If the land is owned and/or occupied by a company, corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the site plan is a true and accurate representation of the land which you purport is the subject of the parking contract;
A copy of the site plan provided by yourself to your accredited trade association;
A plan showing where any signs were displayed;
Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed);
Evidence and copies of reminder letters which you claim were sent;
Photographs showing explicit proof that the vehicle was parked or parked in a Vets4Pets parking bay rather than the residential bays within the same lot;
If you have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated;
A transcript of any previous judgement or judgments in any case or cases involving the same land and Premier Park;
Any other information and documents on which you would rely in court in support your belief that the current parking regime is valid.
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as 23rd May 2018 yet you have refused to provide it.
Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to properly consider my position in relation to it. Nevertheless I will state why I still dispute the claim based on what information I have been provided thus far and on what evidence I have collated myself. Should you refuse to provide requested documentation, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
I dispute the debt on these grounds:
1.No contract formed with driver - Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 operators are required to provide drivers with a minimum 10 minute grace period in order to read the terms and conditions of the car park and to decide whether they are to accept to terms or not. As the driver entered and left the car park all within a 5 minute period, no contract was entered into. The entrance sign applied by Premier Park invites drivers to read further signage within the car park and therefor a grace period absolutely should be upheld.
2. Insufficient signage
- Signs make no explicit mention of the use of ANPR technology
- Entrance signs do not comply with the BPA’s Code of Practice, the signage does not take into account the anticipated speed of the vehicle approaching the car park, the entrance sign contains no Group 1 text and any Group 2 or subsequent text comes no where near meeting the minimum capital height of 60mm for a parking area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road with no barrier control, therefore the entrance sign is not legible for drivers without stopping, slowing or needing to look away from the road ahead or entering car park to read further signage.
3. I dispute on the grounds of unauthorised entry as no mention of entering the car park as being seen as unauthorised entry or trespassing is mentioned on any sign. The owners of the car park have made no attempts to mitigate losses by installing barriers or deterrents of any kind at the entrance of the car park. A “P” symbol is utilised on the entrance signage as well as the word “Welcome” and therefore welcomes drivers to use the space as a car park and does not deter against trespassing. Again I refer you back to section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 in which even if parking is not permitted a grace period is still required.
4. I dispute on the grounds that Premier Park have no proof of authority to manage the car park. I do not believe that Premier Park has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, Premier Park must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level. I contend that Premier Park merely holds a basic license to supply and maintain (non-compliant) signs and to issue NtK Parking Charge Notices.
5. I dispute a £100 charge for a period of 5 minutes as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The documents I have provided in support are:
1. A copy of extracts of the BPA’s Code of Practice
- Section 13 Grace Periods
- Section 18 Signs
- Appendix B Entrance Signs
- Section 21 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
- Sections 20.5, 22.3 and 7.1
2. Photographs of the car park and signage
As you are no doubt aware, paragraph 5 of the Protocol reads as follows:
5 Disclosure of Documents
5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.
5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –
(a) provide the document or information; or
(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,
within 30 days of receipt of the request.
Naturally, I fully expect you to meet the requirements mentioned in paragraph 5.2 above.
I do, therefore, look forward to receiving either the documents and information which I have requested or your explanation why they are unavailable within the deadline set by the Protocol.
Yours Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx
Hey guys, I know you don’t like the threads being bumped but some feedback on my LBA response would be really appreciated, thank you.
Fitch 5. GPEOL is a horrible argument to put forward, unles syou know the Beavis casse inside and out.
I would cut out the point about GPEOL. Apart from the complexities of the Beavis case I think it undermines your other points of defence.
I didn't quite follow the sentence that states 'The documents I have provided in support are:' is the grammer in error here?
Otherwise the letter is good and serves a good top-spin back across the net!
Hey guys, it’s been 30 days since I posted my reply to the LBA and have not received the documents I requested or any response at all. What does this mean going forward? Thanks.
Edit: just looked at the dates of these comments and clearly it hasn’t been 30 days. I’m looking at the wrong proof of postage certificate. D’oh. Sorry please ignore I don’t know how to delete comments.
Even so, they have not responded quickly which is a good sign. Hopefully it has ended up in the 'too hard' file.
Okay, I have not received any response from Premier Park after my LBA response, do I consider this case closed? Do I write to Premier Park stating their lack of response within the required period will be considered a cancellation of the alleged debt? Thank you.
No don't write to PP. The ball is firmly in their court. You will undermine your position if you write to them at this point. Don't give them any sense that you may be desperate to get this closed. I would say that it is now increasingly unlikely that they will respond but formally they can just sit on it.
In summary, no news is good news!
Okay, I have just received a response from PP which I believe is outside the 30 day window? They have refused to give me anything that I have asked for and it is an all round snarky letter.
Heres a link to it:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/101cswaw6/
Cannot get my head round their argument that a 10 minute grace period only applies to those that have permission to park and it's much less than 5 minutes for those that don't LOL, they either followed the BPA guidelines or they did not.
Anyway you need to prepare for a claim.
This is what I’m confused about. The car park is for vets 4 pets customers. They have to go inside the vets and register their reg plate on their machines. Where does this come under the BPAs CoP in regards to car parks, if it’s a car park where parking is not permitted then apparently they can set their own grace period? Is this correct? Or would it be considered a car park where parking is permitted? And therefore a 10 minute grace period applies. They claimed that the grace period in the POPLA claim was 5 minutes and now they are saying less than 5 minutes. When I look at the actual time that the car entered and left on the ANPR images it reads as 20:03:22 to 20:08:33. Is my main point of contention now a total loss?
If you could direct be where the best place is to research in preparation for a claim I’d very much appreciate it, thank you.
They are making it up as they go along, the grace period in the BPA CoP clause 13 applies whether they like it or not. Beavis works in your favour as BPA CoP adherence was mentioned in the ruling.
They seem to be making it up re 5 minute grace period. Their argument is flawed saying that the driver only needed 5 minutes. The driver only took 5 minutes! In summary a very weak argument that would be unlikely to win in court in my view.
I find it interesting that they refuse to provide evidence of their authority to issue PCNs. You must insist that they provide it. You need proof and they are obliged to provide it to comply with the PAP. Saying that your request for evidence is not relevant and then saying that they think they comply with the PAP is laughable! They are obliged to provide it. It is up to you and the judge to decide if it is relevant. In summary then are NOT complying with the PAP!
Let them know that you will NOT be paying this claim short of a successful court claim. They need to realise that you will not be worried into settling without them spending money taking you to court.
So I have received a court claim from PP. Considering they did not adhere to the PAP is it worth pushing for the information I want, such as a valid contract when the parking event happened? Do I send them a SAR. Or do I leave it and trying to utilise this in my defence in court? My intention was to do the Acknowledgement of service and then to write to the Landowner in order to attempt to get it cancelled but I cannot find the apparent Landowner anywhere online. I purchased the title register for the car park and when I search the address it does not give me the Landowner but an Accountancy Service of a different name instead.
IF you have a court claim, you must acknowledge online fairly quickly. No comments whatsoever in the defence box, no contest of jurisdiction and you will defend the claim in full. This extends the time available to submit your defence.
Others will suggest your next step.
Next step after AOS on MCOL is to read other defence threads and show us your first draft, that's your priority.
The complaint to the landowner should haev been done ages ago and it;s too late in most cases after court proceedings have begun.
I'm trying to do MCOL but there is no Defence Pack Password on the claim form, does that mean I can't do it online?
It should be on the the first page, the claim notice. Right hand side web address and password.
No Defence yet
Has your form got a claim number and a court seal (usually a rather hazy rubber stamp over the seal circle? If it has not gone through the court then there is no claim in place.
OK Looks like they've done it the old paper way and no you won't be able to do it online. You need to acknowledge as soon as you can. I don't know how but you will have to read the forms. What is the court address on the form?
Out of interest could you post up the claim form please, suitably redacted.
According to the PoC paragraph 2, your car entered into a contact with the claimant!
OMG! So.… parking period commences on entry and if you enter contrary to terms you have to pay £100. However, there's no stopping or waiting so you can't read the signs and even if you can read them from your moving vehicle that has to be done from outside of the carpark.
Good spot Dave! You can't make it up - oh, sorry, they did.
Lurv the wording of para 9 - you can't beat spellchecker! "before and after the Defendant entered and excited the car park". Must be used for dogging!
They are stating that the defendant entered the contract you must dispute that.
They are claiming legal costs. Dispute that as the claim was issued in house by an employee employed to do just that.
Looking at the times check sunset times. If dark were the signs illuminated (edit: 20:38 in London)
In the beavis case a comment was made by the judge that the CoP should be treated as though it was law and the parking companies were expected to comply. Which is where the 10 minutes grace period for the driver to read and accept or reject the contract on the sign comes in.
I must admit I'm not upto speed on non mcol claims procedures. Is there instructions with the form
A company is allowed to claim the Legal Representative fee for a claim issued by an In-house Solicitor BUT
Jacob Edmundson isn't listed on the Law Society register
Neither is Premier Park as an organisation with an in-house solicitor
I would contact the Law Society to confirm it
If he doesn't exist on the register, challenge the £50 addition
A Jacob T Edmundson does exist in Devon
Thought I'd check because Premier has form for using fake names on statements to POPLA
Did its evidence to POPLA include a contract or witness statement that one existed ?
If so, who signed it and is the signature in a grey rectangle ?
What's the date of that M&M signature ?
I can't tell if it's 7 February or 7 July
I have just contacted this particular Vets4Pets about the car park, they claim you can only register your vehicle if you are a client of this particular vets and if you have a booked appointment. So if someone wanted to pop in to ask a question they would be unable to register even if they attempted to and would still receive a PCN for those few minutes. They make no mention of this detail on their website. Is this entrapment?
Entrapment has no validity as a concept in the UK.
Top of a Google search:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf
It starts with grace periods but the point is a general one about the status of the CoP.
But, now that I have looked back a few posts, aren't you pleading a grace period? If so, why do you want to edit the paragraph from SC?
Okay - but check out the CoP Para 13.1 in conjunction with the rest. It talks about the time to read signs & make a decision etc. The 10 mins isn't specified at that point, but then you argue if it takes 10 mins to get in the car and drive out, it's reasonable to at least take that long to drive in, leave the vehicle, find the signs, read them, comprehend them, then finally make a decision, get back to the car and clear off.
Section 13 of the CoP covers it all - have a good read.
I shall have the draft defence done in a few days, I’m about half way through. My concern is about posting it up here as I’m aware the parking operators trawl these sites. Is there any other way to get feedback on it?
No
Post it here
They'll see it soon enough anyway.
Hey guys, just need some assistance on one point I'm putting together. Is the term 'given' no longer specifically defined as two working days after the date the PCN is posted in the POFA? I found no mention of it and would like definitive clarification on what they mean by '28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.'
Thank you.
POFA has not changed
8(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
Here is my defence, it is 16 pages with font being Times New Roman size 12 with 1.5 spacing. I'm worried it's too long but I felt there was so many important points to argue. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated:
(link removed)
You can expand on your defence items when it gets to court but you need to have mentioned it first.
Then try to pare it back. It's your defence. You will NOT submit a further defence. This is it. So get it right NOW.
A court will not be interested in 16 pages of defence. Without looking at I bet it isn't SOLELY legal arguments , but chock full of narrative ? If so, that is saved for your WS - which deals with facts.
Don't mistake length for substance.
Use bargepole's concise defence instead, with ONE point added which talks about the facts of the car park and denies liability for whatever the Particulars of Claim say.
I agree with Umkomaas:
Defence attempt number 2, I hope this is better?
https://www.scribd.com/document/397846666/Defence-Draft-Redacted?secret_password=uNxr7LKswoXHqH3Hk3uC
Hey guys, sorry, I was wondering if I could get some feedback on my defence? Thank you.
I've been away on work, and have had no chance to look at this
Hope others can do so
SRM are you out there??
The date of service was the 10th so I think I have until the 7th February but would rather send it off sooner than later so any feedback would be great.
No, dont rush this!
Yes yiou have until 4pm on the 7th feb
I get an error while viewing the above at work; just copy and paste it into the forum, people dont like following links.
Apologies, here you go:
Claim Number: XXXX
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Ltd (Claimant)
vs
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________________________________________________
Defence
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
The Defendant is and was the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX, which is the subject of these proceedings, at the time of the alleged parking event. The driver’s actions cannot be known, only assumed, the onus is upon the Claimant to provide strict proof that the alleged parking occurred.
The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim contradict the Notice of Keeper that was issued. The Notice to Keeper claims ‘unauthorised parking’, whereas the Particulars of Claim state ‘breach of contract’. Where the Claimant’s stance seems muddled, The Defendant can only dispute on both grounds as it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. In matters of ‘unauthorised parking’ the cause of action lies with the landowner, not with the Claimant.
The vehicle entered and exited the car park within a 5 minute period. As an Approved Operator of the British Parking Association, The Claimant is required to adhere to their strict Code of Practice. Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 operators are required to provide drivers with a minimum 10 minute grace period in order to read the terms and conditions of the car park and to decide whether they are to accept the terms or not. As the driver entered and left the car park all within a 5 minute period, no contract was entered into. The Claimant states in their POPLA evidence pack that the entry grace period for this site is 5 minutes, thus by their own admission, no contractual agreement was ever formed.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are unfulfillable and forbidding. They do not provide an invitation to park on certain terms, it disallows other parking other than for Vets4Pets clients, staff, or contractors. The terms and conditions could be construed to only apply to drivers who are authorised to park, not others who are forbidden from entering the area. This is supported by three examples of case law being; ‘Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford’, ‘UK Parking Control Ltd v Sean Masterson’, and ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ . This therefore means this is a landowner issue for trespass, in which the cause of action lies with the freeholder and not the Claimant. As the Claimant is acting as an agent on behalf on a named principal; being M&M Properties Ltd, they have no standing to bring a claim. This is supported by ‘Fairlie v Fenton’.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation was in place at the time of the alleged parking event. It is noted that the Claimant provided an out of date, redacted contract which ended on 27th July 2017. No evidence that the offer of a rolling contract extension was agreed upon has been supplied, despite multiple requests.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so from a car or with any amount of ease when outside the car. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
Furthermore, the entrance sign at the site in question fails to adhere, in a multitude of ways, to Appendix B of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012. The terms on the Claimant's signage fail to mention the use of ANPR technology, which has been utilised to capture the details of the Defendant’s vehicle. Operators are required to state their use of this technology on signage as per Section 21.1 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012.
The car park in question contains eight Vets4Pets parking bays. The car park in question also contains two residential parking bays belonging to Flats 1 and 2 of Merry Oak House, 104B Spring Road, Southampton, SO19 2BN. These two residential parking bays require use of the same entrance as used for the Vets4Pets parking bays and also belongs to the landowner M&M Properties Ltd. The Claimant does not and did not ever have a contract in place to manage these two spaces on behalf of M&M Properties Ltd. The ANPR captured images provided by the Claimant on the Notice to Keeper do not show the car parked in a parking bay. The Defendant puts to the Claimant to provide strict proof that the car was parked in a Vets4Pets bay, rather than either of the residential bays.
The Claimant has failed to transfer liability to the keeper as the Notice to Keeper that was issued on the 18th May 2018 is not compliant with the strict terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges. The Claimant has shown a significant failure to state the correct timeline of liability, by using the term ‘within 29 days’ rather than the required ‘period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given’, where 'given' is specifically defined as two working days after the date posted.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £50, allegedly for legal representative’s costs, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Furthermore, no Jacob Edmundson is registered with the Law Society, and neither is Premier Park Ltd registered as an organisation with an in-house legal representative. It is for this reason the Defendant requests this fee to be struck out.
In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Is this not the £50 for filing? If so then you need to make it clear that they have not used a solicitor to file this claim, and so the fee cannot be claimed.
Yes, but where on the form is it listed?
In its own box, or in the PoC free text field?
Which is, as i've said, the maximum allowed to be claimed for a solicitor filing the form
SO it needs handling differently to them claiming legal reps costs elsewhere on the PoC, as there are two avenues of attack (or three if Keeper is defending) there
Here you have to state that the "legal rep. costs" fee of £50 is only available to a claimant where they have engaged a legally qualified individual to file the claim on tehir behalf. AS this claim was filed by an individual within PP who is not registered as a legally qualified person, and the company that filed the claim has no inhouse team according to X, this amount cannot be claimed. CLaiming amounts they are not entiteld to is an abuse of process, and the defendant invites teh corut to strike out the claim entirely using their case management powers.
"The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. "
That has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS FEE
That would be why I did not mention it at all in my response. Remove it, as uit has nothing to do with this £50 fee
The above is ONLY used where you are challenging non-"standard" additions; such as debt collectors, or "legal costs" included in the Particulars of Claim - not these standard, itemised additions which CAN be claimed against a Keeper, if they qualify. For example, the Filing and Hearing fees that the court charegs ARE allowed against a Keeper.
I havent seen the POC yet, but IF they have tried to apply these additional costs, then you have a seperate paragraph, stating the above quoted line, and detailing which charges on the PoC are not allowed.
I am unsure why you are querying an in-house rep being allowed to claim - you have covered that, as have I. The person signing it is not a legal rep, and the company is not registered as having in house rep, meaning it cannot be claimed
Unkomass - PE actually have legally qualified people, hence they can claim it. The tactic was to point out they uissue so many claims, the legally qualified people coudl nto possibly spend more than 5 monuites on the filing - and there is no way that costs £50!
A snippet from the defence..
The Claimant states in their POPLA evidence pack that the entry grace period for this site is 5 minutes,
I thought there was a ruling that the parking co. have to treat the CoP from the trade body as if it were the law and they MUST allow a ten minute grace period. Is that not worth putting in here?
I cant see the attached image. Likely work blocked
Just type out the particulars
Not hard. Theyll be about 500 chat in length, max
Bearclaw - that period at the start does not define 10min
The Beavis SC ruling states the CoP is "effectiveily binding" and compliance with it is required otherwise the penalty rule is not lifted
Howveer you can easily argue that if it takes 10 minutes to leave, when all you need to do is
- get out of a KNOWN parking space
- drive to exit
Then the entry time msut be ALSO at least ten minutes, becasue you have more actions to perfom
- drive in from perimeter
- find a parking space
- park
- find signs
- walk to signs
- read signs
- decide whether to accept the terms or to leave.
- find p&d machine (in P&D car park)
- purchas e aticket (if needed)
- walk back to car to display ticket (etc)
It cannotbe reasonable that this is supposed to take LESS time than merely leaving.
Oh wow
Dod they claim the £50 for filing?
Theyre REALLY trying to claim for five minutes
THis is going to be hiilarious
Your defence has to point out that compliance with teh CoP is mandatory
The vehicle was parked for under 5 minutes, therefore within the mandatory grace period
Therefore no charge could be issued, and any charge issued MSUT be a penalty because the SC in Beavis stated that compliance with the CoP was a requirement of them finding the charge NOT to be a penalty
It will be interesting to see if they pay the hearing fee. Which firm of solicitors is representing them?
Okay, here is the latest version of my defence, could I get some final feedback please?
Claim Number: XXXX
BETWEEN:
Premier Park Ltd (Claimant)
vs
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________________________________________________
Defence
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
The Defendant is and was the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX, which is the subject of these proceedings, at the time of the alleged parking event. The driver’s actions cannot be known, only assumed, the onus is upon the Claimant to provide strict proof that the alleged parking occurred.
The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim contradict the Notice of Keeper that was issued. The Notice to Keeper claims ‘unauthorised parking’, whereas the Particulars of Claim state ‘breach of contract’. Where the Claimant’s stance seems muddled, The Defendant can only dispute on both grounds as it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. In matters of ‘unauthorised parking’ the cause of action lies with the landowner, not with the Claimant.
The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the driver remained at the Car Park for a total period of 5 minutes. As an Approved Operator of the British Parking Association, The Claimant is required to adhere to their strict Code of Practice. Under section 13 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 operators are required to provide drivers with a minimum 10 minute grace period in order to read the terms and conditions of the car park and to decide whether they are to accept the terms or not. As the driver entered and left the car park all within a 5 minute period, no contract was entered into. The entrance sign applied by Premier Park invites drivers to read further signage containing the terms and conditions within the car park and therefor a grace period absolutely should be upheld. Please note that in the judgment given in the ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ Case in regards to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice it states that although the ‘Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.’ In the Claimant’s evidence pack provided to POPLA they state that the entry grace period for this site is 5 minutes, by their own admission the driver did not exceed the entry grace period, as the driver took a total of 5 minutes to enter and exit, so no contract was formed. Please note that during the Letter of Claim process the Claimant then tried to claim that the grace period for this parking site was “less than 5 minutes” with no actual number of minutes stated. This is to be viewed as an obvious attempt to “move the goalposts” as it were, in order to try to gain payment from the Defendant.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are unfulfillable and forbidding. They do not provide an invitation to park on certain terms, it disallows other parking other than for Vets4Pets clients, staff, or contractors. The terms and conditions could be construed to only apply to drivers who are authorised to park, not others who are forbidden from entering the area. This is supported by three examples of case law being; ‘Parking Control Management v Bull, Lyndsay and Woolford’, ‘UK Parking Control Ltd v Sean Masterson’, and ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ . This therefore means this is a landowner issue for trespass, in which the cause of action lies with the freeholder and not the Claimant. As the Claimant is acting as an agent on behalf on a named principal; being M&M Properties Ltd, they have no standing to bring a claim. This is supported by ‘Fairlie v Fenton’.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation was in place at the time of the alleged parking event. It is noted that the Claimant provided an out of date, redacted contract which ended on 27th July 2017. No evidence that the offer of a rolling contract extension was agreed upon has been supplied, despite multiple requests.
The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so from a car or with any amount of ease when outside the car. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
Furthermore, the entrance sign at the site in question fails to adhere, in a multitude of ways, to Appendix B of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012. The terms on the Claimant's signage fail to mention the use of ANPR technology, which has been utilised to capture the details of the Defendant’s vehicle. Operators are required to state their use of this technology on signage as per Section 21.1 of the BPA's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 2012.
The car park in question contains eight Vets4Pets parking bays. The car park in question also contains two residential parking bays belonging to Flats 1 and 2 of Merry Oak House, 104B Spring Road, Southampton, SO19 2BN. These two residential parking bays require use of the same entrance as used for the Vets4Pets parking bays and also belongs to the landowner M&M Properties Ltd. The Claimant does not and did not ever have a contract in place to manage these two spaces on behalf of M&M Properties Ltd. The ANPR captured images provided by the Claimant on the Notice to Keeper do not show the car parked in a parking bay. The Defendant puts to the Claimant to provide strict proof that the car was parked in a Vets4Pets bay, rather than either of the residential bays.
The Claimant has failed to transfer liability to the keeper as the Notice to Keeper that was issued on the 18th May 2018 is not compliant with the strict terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges. The Claimant has shown a significant failure to state the correct timeline of liability, by using the term ‘within 29 days’ rather than the required ‘period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given’, where 'given' is specifically defined as two working days after the date posted.
The ‘Legal representative’s costs’ of £50 can only be claimed where the Claimant has engaged a legally qualified individual to file the claim on their behalf. As this claim was filed by an individual within Premier Park Ltd, who is not registered with the Law Society, and the Claimant is not registered as having an in-house legal representative with the Law Society, this amount cannot be claimed. Claiming costs that the Claimant is not entitled to is an abuse of process, and the Defendant invites the court to strike out the additional cost entirely, using its case management powers.
In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Are you going to add the numbering in? You MUST number it. Sensible numbering. No sub-points unless you absolutely have to - 1,2,3,4,5 etc are normally fine.
Also just wanted to add, I checked whether a Jacob Edmundson is registered with the Law Society, the SRA, CILEx and The Notaries Society. Absolutely zero records held anywhere. He doesn't exist.
Hey guys, so I still haven't received the Directions Questionnaire, how long should I wait for it? I sent my defence in over two weeks ago.
It could take a month or more.
Check mcol
See what it says
That's the first place to check. We can't tell you more than the actual court...
You got the paperwork but it was probably raised online. Did you get a web page address and a password on the claim form?
Premier Park issue manual claims via Stockport CC.
Thanks
Premier Park has a lot of form for fake names and signatures on statements
I had to look twice to make sure that a Jacob Edmundson listed on LinkedIn doesn't work for the company
He's a Fabrication Automation Engineer
Somebody by that name was listed on the Electoral Roll for Devon from 2014-2017
Hey guys, spoke to the court today. Turns out they failed to process my defence. They stated it’s their mistake which they have rectified and have now sent out Directions Questionnaires. I then weirdly got a missed call from PP and a voicemail from “Jacob Edmundson” staying he would like to discuss things with me. Bit suspicious, I can only think it’s to discuss the part of the defence where I state he’s not registered with Law Society. Etc. What do you guys reckon?
Only engage with them via the courts.
NEVER speak to them by phone. Only ever in writing so that you have a record.
So I’ve had PPs Direction Questionnaire turn up. There is no where in the form that mentions a paper hearing and it seems they haven’t requested one. On my copy of the form there isn’t any extra space for me to state that I don’t want a paper hearing so should I leave that out? They have requested the hearing to be at their local court, obviously I’ll request my local court but on the form it says neither gets preference, it’s just wherever they decide to allocate it? Also, PP have agreed to mediation. I know the advice is to say no to mediation but I just worry that will make me look bad as I know the judges like to see that you’ve tried to work things out in a reasonable manner.
Between a business and private individual then the preference of the individual takes precedence. Agree to mediation, if nothing gets agreed then nothing lost
Good news everyone, we had a letter from PP saying that they are discontinuing the court claim. They tried one last intimidation tactic before they cancelled which was to print out every single page of this thread, saying that they had been following it, said they would show my conduct to the judge, that my defence was forum generated, blah blah blah. I ignored it because I was busy with other things. Then we got the letter about the cancellation through. Sticking to your guns works. But on the other hand I wanted to let you guys know that someone I know also received a PCN from PP at the same time and they ignored every single letter, it seems to have stopped at the debt collector stage. I know you guys say not to ignore, but it seems to have worked for them as they have not heard anything in many months.
Good stuff.
Ignoring is still generally not advised. They do have 6 years to raise a claim.
They have 6 years to claim. Parking companies often sell their back catalogues of old charges to BBL/Gladstones years later.
They tried one last intimidation tactic before they cancelled which was to print out every single page of this thread, saying that they had been following it, said they would show my conduct to the judge, that my defence was forum generated, blah blah blah.
They wanted to produce as evidence a thread that describes how they submit forged documents to an appeals body ?
Don't forget to submit a SAR request to give them some extra work to do, if you had letters from them under the guise of PP legal SAR them as well. In my case it ran to about 300 pages and cost them about 7 quid in postage.
Ask them who they have transfered your personal information to as well and SAR all of those.
Once you have received the SAR send them an article 17 erasure request so they have to dig it all out again to delete it.
REstriction of processing is NOT A SAR. Utterly different.
So I received a letter from PP in June about discontinuing claim which stated “I can confirm that Premier Park Limited have today cancelled the Parking Charge Notice Number XXXXXXX and your information will be removed from their systems in accordance with their Privacy Policy and Data Retention Policy”
Yet today I have had a letter come through from PP Legal requesting us to pay £170 for the same PCN. How can they do this?!
Send them a letter before action, for breach of the data protection act
£750
Theyve aggravated it by claiming, discontinuing, promising to delete then starting to chase again.
Raise a formal complaint with the ICO too. It will bolster your claim, if it proceeds, and will hopefully land them in a spot of bother.
I would immediately complain to Premier and also refer the case to the ICO without delay
You also want to inform the ICO regarding the Premier response to the SAR
The Data Protection Act had a statutory maximum charge of £10
The GDPR says that they must provide the information for free
It is by definition a breach of DPA; they a) had no reason to continue processing your data and b) confirmed they would in fact cease doing so and c) cannot now make stuff up agani
Send them a LBA and make those complaints.
Post your LBA up here for critique too.
Let's make sure you get them where it hurts, in their pocket.
I have to wait one calendar month for a response from PP about the way they have used my data before I can raise a complaint with the ICO, I then will need to get legal advice of whether I have a case for compensation or to take them to court. I will keep you updated.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)