Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ PCN received from Premier Park

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:22
Post #1383896

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/


Posted by: kommando Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:33
Post #1383901

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:41
Post #1383908

QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:33) *
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.


Sorry but can I asked what IPA is short for? Premier Park are a member of BPA so would their 10 minute grace period not be applicable here? Thank you for your response.

Posted by: kommando Mon, 21 May 2018 - 20:52
Post #1383910

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:03
Post #1383914

QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:52) *
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.


Brilliant, thank you. Would it make sense for me to write out my appeal and post it here for review before sending it off to Premier Park? I've read about POPLA on here but not IAS, if our IAS appeal is rejected would I still be able to go through POPLA or is that it? I've tried to do some reading up before hand but am relatively clueless. Thanks again.

Posted by: Dave65 Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:29
Post #1383920

Yes post up a copy of the appeal here first for checking.
As stated use the grace period read the signs and left.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:38
Post #1383922

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 22 May 2018 - 12:03
Post #1384077

QUOTE (Dave65 @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 22:29) *
Yes post up a copy of the appeal here first for checking.
As stated use the grace period read the signs and left.


Okay, here is what I have so far:

Parking Charge Reference Number: XXXXXXX

Dear Premier Park,

I am writing in reference to the Parking Charge Notice issued to me as the keeper of the colour, make model, vehicle registration number XXXXXXX. The Parking Charge Notice is dated 18th May 2018.

I have decided to decline to offer you the details of the driver. As the registered keeper of the above vehicle I deny any liability for this unenforceable charge on the grounds that no contract was established between Premier Park and the driver. As a member of the British Parking Association, you are required to provide a grace period of 10 minutes. As detailed in the Parking Charge Notice the entry time/date being 20:03 11/05/2018 and the exit time/date being 20:08 11/05/2018 totals a period of 5 minutes. Under the BPA Code of Practice 2012 – Version 7, January 2018 it states:

13 Grace periods
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
4. 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.

Secondly, I challenge that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued on the grounds of unauthorized entry as the owners of the car park have made no steps to mitigate their losses by installing barriers of any kind at the entrance of the car park, they have also installed inappropriate and illegible signage at the entrance of the car park. As you have only provided four images, one of the front of the vehicle and the back of the vehicle whilst it is in motion, with two close ups of the registration number, you have provided no evidence that the vehicle was parked within a Vet4Pet’s parking bay. This is compounded by the fact that within the car park plot, two of the bays are residential and are not owned by Vets4Pets.

Please provide acceptance of the appeal and cancel the charge, or if the appeal is rejected please provide a unique appeal reference number for the Independent Appeals Service.

Regards,

Registered Keeper

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 22 May 2018 - 12:11
Post #1384079

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 wink.gif

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 22 May 2018 - 12:17
Post #1384082

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 22 May 2018 - 13:11) *
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 wink.gif


Ahaha, it's tempting but I don't want to push my luck laugh.gif

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 24 May 2018 - 13:29
Post #1384672

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.


Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 24 May 2018 - 13:36
Post #1384674

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 24 May 2018 - 13:59
Post #1384686

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 14:36) *
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.



I worry that not responding wouldn't be a good idea but I don't know really, if I don't get a response in 35 days can the charge be considered cancelled?

Posted by: ostell Thu, 24 May 2018 - 14:04
Post #1384689

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,

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 24 May 2018 - 14:12
Post #1384692

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 24 May 2018 - 15:04) *
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,


Okay, thanks guys, I'll take your word for it happy.gif

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 24 May 2018 - 14:13
Post #1384693

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 18:45
Post #1393710

QUOTE (kommando @ Mon, 21 May 2018 - 21:52) *
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.



Okay, so we got the email response from Premier Park today. They have declined the appeal, which seems mad to me because surely they will just end up paying POPLA to be told that they have to honour the grace period? In terms of the POPLA appeal, would a slight rewrite of my original appeal to Premier Park be satisfactory? Considering the main point of contention is the grace period and I shouldn't really need to argue any other point too much surely? Here's their response:

"PCN REFERENCE NUMBER: XXXXXXX
DATE OF PARKING EVENT: 11th May 2018
DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 25th June 2018

POPLA CODE: XXXXXXXXXX
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: £60.00
PAYMENT DUE BY: 9th July 2018

Dear Mr XXXX,



Thank you for your appeal, on behalf of the driver, against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however on this occasion the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;



As you were not a Vets4Pets customer.



You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options;



You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following payment options;

Call us on: 01302 513232
Pay online: www.pcnpayments.com
Send a postal order: Premier Park Ltd, PO Box 624, Exeter, EX1 9JG


You can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA reference code provided above. Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected or you withdraw your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the PCN will become due.



If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website, www.popla.co.uk where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure your POPLA Reference Number, as noted above, is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA. You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA. If you appeal to POPLA we will suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase until the appeal has been determined.



By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services. org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.



If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN may be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will be added to the amount outstanding.



IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Unless any additional relevant information or facts are provided, Premier Park Ltd considers this to be their final decision regarding this appeal.

Please note that all payments are subject to a 50p administration charge."

Posted by: Jlc Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 19:46
Post #1393715

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 19:45) *
...the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;

As you were not a Vets4Pets customer.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

BPA 13.1 applies, the driver decided not to accept the contract on offer and left.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 19:57
Post #1393718

QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 20:46) *
QUOTE (dingleberry @ Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 19:45) *
...the appeal has been rejected for the following reason;

As you were not a Vets4Pets customer.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

BPA 13.1 applies, the driver decided not to accept the contract on offer and left.


Haha, exactly what I thought, okay, I'll get to writing the POPLA appeal. So absurd, lol.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 25 Jun 2018 - 21:52
Post #1393748

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.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 07:47
Post #1393802

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)

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 10:58
Post #1393853

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 08:47) *
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)


Well, that doesn't fill me with confidence.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 11:07
Post #1393857

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.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 11:07
Post #1393858

A judge would probably not share those ridiculous POPLA assessments of the case!

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 12:15
Post #1393888

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 12:07) *
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.


Okay, thanks Macapaca, I'm hoping I have enough evidence on my side i.e. Entrance signage is smaller than required by BPA, no attempt to mitigate losses by preventing access, they have not allowed a grace period and that there are two residential parking spaces inside the same car park. I'll include photographs of all of that in the POPLA appeal.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 12:26
Post #1393894

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 19:24
Post #1394009

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.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:01
Post #1394022

The signs must state that they are using cameras to calculate the parking time from entry

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:32
Post #1394032

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!

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:50
Post #1394036

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.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 20:54
Post #1394039

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

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 21:02
Post #1394043

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 21:50) *
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.


Would that be that Premier Park do not own the land they are operating on?


QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 21:54) *
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


Should I request that Premier Park provide POPLA with an unedited copy of the contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent)?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 14:50
Post #1394204

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

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 17:47
Post #1396886

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 21:54) *
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

One of my clients has just received a Letter Before Claim following a lost POPLA appeal a couple of years ago

Have just had another look at the witness statement they sent to POPLA

The witness statement on behalf of the landowner has been signed by Premier's own accountant

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:01
Post #1396888

Mmmm. That looks a bit suspicious. I wouldn't trust PP as far as I could throw them.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 13:51
Post #1397095

Thats not suspiscious. Thats perjury.

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 14:41
Post #1397113

Perjury indeed. They faked a solicitor's letter with me. PP cannot be trusted.

Posted by: Redivi Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 14:51
Post #1397118

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

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:51
Post #1397414

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.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:05
Post #1397422

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:06
Post #1397423

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:17
Post #1397429

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:05) *
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.


Thanks. When you say a lot of effort what exactly do you mean? What sort of evidence would they collate?


QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:06) *
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.


All these comments about perjury, they just sound relentless.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:19
Post #1397432

Perjury? PP are saying that?
Yawn. Its PP.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:26
Post #1397437

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:19) *
Perjury? PP are saying that?
Yawn. Its PP.


No about "the witness statement on behalf of the landowner being signed by Premier's own accountant" and faked solicitors letters, just the lengths they will go to get £100, crazy.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:51
Post #1397449

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



Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:03
Post #1397458

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:04
Post #1397460

QUOTE (Redivi @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:51) *
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


Shocking. So is there even any point at the end of this for me to complain to BPA about PP not adhering to their code of conduct?

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:16
Post #1397465

If there is something worthy of complaint then yes you should complain. However don't hold you breath for the answer you would like!

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 15:21
Post #1397553

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.

 PP_Evidence_Pack_Redacted2.pdf ( 1.63MB ) : 175
 

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 15:58
Post #1397562

Couldn't get the file size down small enough so here it is:
http://docdro.id/5w1DUS1

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:37
Post #1397575

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

Posted by: ostell Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:45
Post #1397584

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:49
Post #1397593

QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:45) *
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.


It says there is a rolling Contract Extension option in place should both parties wish to continue, would they need to evidence this?

Posted by: ostell Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 16:52
Post #1397596

You insist that they need to evidence that it has been rolled over.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:04
Post #1397606

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 07:42
Post #1397818

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:48
Post #1398071

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 08:42) *
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.


Thanks for the advice guys, I have submitted my comments. I'll let you know when I know. Fingers crossed.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:50
Post #1398072

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!

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 21:57
Post #1398074

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 22:50) *
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!


Thanks SchoolRunMum, I had a little look before but will have a proper look when I can. I'll take your word for it though as you know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Macapaca Wed, 11 Jul 2018 - 23:14
Post #1398084

Absolutely right. You will not be paying anything irrespective of whether your POPLA appeal is upheld or not!

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 09:48
Post #1405417

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 09:55
Post #1405423

Presumably the website still says pending?
If so, then theyre being slow
Dont panic, nothing you can do about it.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:57
Post #1405514

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 10:55) *
Presumably the website still says pending?
If so, then theyre being slow
Dont panic, nothing you can do about it.


Yes still says pending, not panicking about it anymore lol, just want it over and done with, I'll just put it out of my mind for now, thanks.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 10:53
Post #1407903

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 11:51
Post #1407923

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:07
Post #1407928

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:51) *
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.


I emailed info@popla.co.uk to complain and request it be escalated to POPLA lead assessor, is this how you would recommend to complain or is there another method?

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:27
Post #1407934

QUOTE
The appellant has not provided me with any explanation or evidence to suggest why the motorist required a grace period.

I read this quote from POPLA to mean that if you had just stated some reason for the grace period e.g. it took 5 minutes to read the signs and then the driver decided not to park, then POPLA would have been ok with the grace period in line with BPA guidelines. They are basically saying that the driver had 5 minutes free parking therefore the PCN was issued correctly.

I don't agree with that decision but can see their warped logic. I would continue to fight this and complaining to POPLA is worth doing but I wouldn't bank on them changing their decision. In any case I would brace yourself for an ongoing fight with the PPC who will now send a letter demanding payment. You should reply to that making it clear that you dispute the POPLA decision and why. You then make it clear that you will not be paying them anything so they will waste their time and money sending debt collection agency letters which have NO authority whatsoever.

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:15
Post #1407945

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 13:27) *
QUOTE
The appellant has not provided me with any explanation or evidence to suggest why the motorist required a grace period.

I read this quote from POPLA to mean that if you had just stated some reason for the grace period e.g. it took 5 minutes to read the signs and then the driver decided not to park, then POPLA would have been ok with the grace period in line with BPA guidelines. They are basically saying that the driver had 5 minutes free parking therefore the PCN was issued correctly.

I don't agree with that decision but can see their warped logic. I would continue to fight this and complaining to POPLA is worth doing but I wouldn't bank on them changing their decision. In any case I would brace yourself for an ongoing fight with the PPC who will now send a letter demanding payment. You should reply to that making it clear that you dispute the POPLA decision and why. You then make it clear that you will not be paying them anything so they will waste their time and money sending debt collection agency letters which have NO authority whatsoever.


I did say that it took 5 minutes for the driver to read the sign and then decided that the were unable to comply with the terms and conditions and so left the car park. I also said that they should make allowances for the driver mobility and reading time. Also, the contract with the landowner was invalid and out of date, when I requested evidence that they had rolled over their contract the operator did not provide it yet the assessor deemed the contract valid. She also ignored the fact that the operator did not provide evidence of the driver parking in the spaces owned by Vets4Pets instead of the residential spaces within the same lot.

Posted by: Macapaca Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 20:18
Post #1408053

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 13:31
Post #1414598

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 13:51
Post #1414607

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.

Posted by: ManxRed Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 13:54
Post #1414608

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:02
Post #1414616

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:51) *
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.


I have done some searching and reading but have not found anything conclusive, from what I found apparently they need permission from the DVLA to pass on this information, but I'm guessing this isn't true? When I search ZZPS all I can find are threads which abruptly end with no update or conclusion, so I have no idea what to expect. I have have no idea if Premier Park will 100% pursue us in court, I have no idea if we have any chance of winning and as a couple where one of us is disabled and we are surviving on a single low income the idea of being faced with hundreds of pounds in court fees absolutely terrifies me. We can barely eat, let alone pay court fees. So please trust me, I am searching and searching constantly but not really finding decent results. If I can't feel confident enough that we could win in court then I'm going to have to pay up because £170 is better than say £500. Not that we can even afford that.

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:54) *
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.


Thank you Manx

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:08
Post #1414620

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:29
Post #1414635

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 15:08) *
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.


Okay thank you. I just wish I could find an example of a court case where the driver wasn't given their required grace period that I could maybe use as reference if it does go that far. I've not been successful in finding it so far, I will keep searching!

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 14:48
Post #1414640

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 15:42
Post #1414651

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 15:48) *
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.


Hi Macapaca, I've already done this, I kinda feel like them rushing it to the debt collectors was a response to my letter, haha

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 16:43
Post #1414672

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!

Posted by: Dave65 Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 09:45
Post #1414766

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 15:00
Post #1420173

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]

Posted by: kommando Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 15:31
Post #1420178

That is an LBA, so needs responding to.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:06
Post #1420192

QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:31) *
That is an LBA, so needs responding to.


Okay, is there a particular way I need to respond or just fill out the reply form?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 16:11
Post #1420198

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.

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 19:36
Post #1420278

You have left the PCN number in the body of the letter. Check it through again.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 20:23
Post #1420289

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 20:36) *
You have left the PCN number in the body of the letter. Check it through again.


Thanks cabbyman, now that I know it is an LBA I have removed the link to it.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 20:48
Post #1420297

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 21:19
Post #1420302

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 21:48) *
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.


Unfortunately the LBA is compliant as far as I can see, contains Reply Form and Financial Statement form. Can I argue anything in regards to POFA if they are now trying to claim I am the driver?

Can I even argue grace periods in court? Since the signs in the car park say parking period commence on entry? Not feeling confident at the moment.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 22:34
Post #1420312

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'.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 01:25
Post #1420333

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.

Posted by: cabbyman Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 06:03
Post #1420338

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.

Posted by: ostell Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 08:28
Post #1420374

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 10:37
Post #1420451

...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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 13:16
Post #1420532

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

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 13:24
Post #1420533

Yes, no harm is saying why you dispute the debt, andthat unless they provide documents, your position cannot be reconsidered.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 14:25
Post #1420552

I've read through the Pre Action Protocols again and can't spot any way in which this LBA isn't compliant.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 14:45
Post #1420559

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:31
Post #1420571

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:45) *
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.


Is it not correct that Premier Park themselves are issuing this LBA and not using a firm instead? What documents would they require? Would this be a copy of the apparent contract between the driver and Premier Park for example? It seems they are intending to pursue the RK as the driver even though no driver has been named, would they have also been required to provide evidence of the driver being named in correspondence?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:36
Post #1420573

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:42
Post #1420578

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:36) *
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.


Okay, thank you. I'm still not completely clear on how to state that they are not compliant with the Pre Action Protocols but I'll figure something out and then post what I've written. Would now be the time to mention about a counterclaim for damages?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:48
Post #1420582

Yes, lay out the basis for such a counterclaim. (you cant just say "damages" - damages for WHAT)

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 15:51
Post #1420585

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:48) *
Yes, lay out the basis for such a counterclaim. (you cant just say "damages" - damages for WHAT)


I'm assuming it would be personal costs as in loss of time and money and compensatory damages for stress?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:08
Post #1420596

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)

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 16:43
Post #1420607

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 17:08) *
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)


So would the claim for costs to attend the hearing be loss of earnings and travel costs? What amount would be acceptable to claim for misuse of personal data and harassment? I will research those cases, thanks.

Posted by: Macapaca Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 17:07
Post #1420612

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!

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 17:45
Post #1420843

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

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 30 Sep 2018 - 17:25
Post #1421087

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 10:56
Post #1421192

Fitch 5. GPEOL is a horrible argument to put forward, unles syou know the Beavis casse inside and out.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 11:54
Post #1421219

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 11:56) *
Fitch 5. GPEOL is a horrible argument to put forward, unles syou know the Beavis casse inside and out.


Okay, thank you Nosferatu. Any other recommendations or am I good to send?

Posted by: Macapaca Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 18:01
Post #1421353

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!

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 19:00
Post #1421365

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 19:01) *
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!


Yes I suppose the grammar isn’t fantastic there. The reply form asks me to submit copies of documents in support of why I dispute the PCN. I’ll reword that and remove GPEOL. Thank you.

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 12:05
Post #1427105

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.

Posted by: Macapaca Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 13:05
Post #1427113

Even so, they have not responded quickly which is a good sign. Hopefully it has ended up in the 'too hard' file.

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 15:33
Post #1427148

QUOTE (Macapaca @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 14:05) *
Even so, they have not responded quickly which is a good sign. Hopefully it has ended up in the 'too hard' file.


They have 11 days left. Fingers crossed.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:40
Post #1430182

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.

Posted by: kommando Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 16:58
Post #1430202

QUOTE
Okay, I have not received any response from Premier Park after my LBA response, do I consider this case closed?


No in short, even with a comprehensive reply to the LBA they can still continue to raise a claim, their case may be useless but they are using the court claim system to apply greater pressure than a debt collector could, CEL for instance raise claims and then if a good defence comes in discontinue, other blindly continue and roll up in court to be trounced. Enough people pay up to make this odd strategy profitable even with the risk of being identified are being unreasonable and open to costs being awarded against them that the normal small claims route allows.

Posted by: Macapaca Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 20:23
Post #1430260

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!

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 14:28
Post #1430690

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/

Posted by: kommando Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 15:04
Post #1430693

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 15:53
Post #1430709

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.

Posted by: kommando Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 16:12
Post #1430715

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.

Posted by: Macapaca Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 17:55
Post #1430759

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 23:41
Post #1450399

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.

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 00:03
Post #1450402

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.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 00:30
Post #1450408

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 00:33
Post #1450410

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 01:30) *
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 was unsure whether a complaint to the landowner would be worthwhile as they are in property management and not a shop or other business that could ever be affected by a loss of customer. I will get to writing the defence.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 13:30
Post #1450526

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?

Posted by: ostell Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:04
Post #1450540

It should be on the the first page, the claim notice. Right hand side web address and password.

No Defence yet

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:08
Post #1450544

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 15:04) *
It should be on the the first page, the claim notice. Right hand side web address and password.

No Defence yet


I've looked all over the claim form and there is nothing, I'm assuming they didn't submit their claim by MCOL so I'll have to reply using email. I am just sending the AOS atm. Then utilising the 28 days to prepare my defence. Obviously will do it ASAP.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:17
Post #1450547

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:19
Post #1450548

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 15:17) *
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.


Yes, it does.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:58
Post #1450718

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:33
Post #1450826

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:58) *
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.


Hi Ostell, here's the claim form and the PoC redacted:

https://postimg.cc/gallery/o5danvfq/

AoS has been submitted via email. I am now preparing my defence.

Posted by: Umkomaas Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 15:12
Post #1450895

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:33) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:58) *
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.


Hi Ostell, here's the claim form and the PoC redacted:

https://postimg.cc/gallery/o5danvfq/

AoS has been submitted via email. I am now preparing my defence.

The claim will have come from the Salford distribution centre. I'm not sure why they're using that route when MCOL is available (causes suspicion juices to flow!). There are slightly different processes over MCOL, so don't make assumptions based on reading other MCOL-related threads about responding etc. I think the claim you have gives you 21 days to submit a defence, MCOL gives 28 (following early submission of AOS) for example.

I'm not sure where your nearest county court is, but given that PP have stated the one nearest them (Torquay & Newton Abbot), make sure this doesn't slip through the net and become the allocated court. You are entitled to have the hearing at your local court.

And all this over a 5 minute stay on the car park - entry to exit? Mandatory Grace Period must cover you here, surely?

Posted by: Sheffield Dave Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 15:12
Post #1450896

According to the PoC paragraph 2, your car entered into a contact with the claimant!

Posted by: Ollyfrog Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 16:27
Post #1450905

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!

Posted by: ostell Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 16:37
Post #1450907

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

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 16:43
Post #1450908

QUOTE (Ollyfrog @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:27) *
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!


Yes, I’ll be utilising all of that in my defence as the terms and conditions are absurd. Also utilising Grace Periods.

Driver being accused of “Exciting the car park” made me chuckle.

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:37) *
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

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


No lighting on signs, it would have been dark/getting dark. I’ll double check.

There are instructions on the forms. I believe I have followed them correctly.

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 16:12) *
QUOTE (dingleberry @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 12:33) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 23:58) *
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.


Hi Ostell, here's the claim form and the PoC redacted:

https://postimg.cc/gallery/o5danvfq/

AoS has been submitted via email. I am now preparing my defence.

The claim will have come from the Salford distribution centre. I'm not sure why they're using that route when MCOL is available (causes suspicion juices to flow!). There are slightly different processes over MCOL, so don't make assumptions based on reading other MCOL-related threads about responding etc. I think the claim you have gives you 21 days to submit a defence, MCOL gives 28 (following early submission of AOS) for example.

I'm not sure where your nearest county court is, but given that PP have stated the one nearest them (Torquay & Newton Abbot), make sure this doesn't slip through the net and become the allocated court. You are entitled to have the hearing at your local court.

And all this over a 5 minute stay on the car park - entry to exit? Mandatory Grace Period must cover you here, surely?


The form says 28 days from date of service. I can submit defence via email. I will ensure I request local court in Directions Questionnaire.

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:03
Post #1450916

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 ?

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:21
Post #1450925

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:03) *
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 ?


Here's a link to the POPLA evidence pack PP provided with a redacted out of date contract (no evidence of rolling contract extension). I have asked them repeatedly for a valid contract, they have not provided one.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=56521

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:54
Post #1450928

What's the date of that M&M signature ?

I can't tell if it's 7 February or 7 July

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:17
Post #1450933

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:54) *
What's the date of that M&M signature ?

I can't tell if it's 7 February or 7 July


July 2016

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:15
Post #1451200

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?

Posted by: Umkomaas Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:20
Post #1451202

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 13:15) *
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?

A point a Judge might take some interest in!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 14:40
Post #1451232

Entrapment has no validity as a concept in the UK.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 15:27
Post #1451261

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 17:37) *
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.



Hi Ostell, I have tried to find this with no success, I would greatly appreciate if you could direct me on where to find this. I can't find a transcript for ParkingEye v Beavis only the judgement and case summary, which I have not found what you have mentioned.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 15:39
Post #1451265

Top of a Google search:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 15:56
Post #1451270

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:39) *
Top of a Google search:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf


The only part I can find is this and I'm not sure that section is in my favour as it discusses grace periods at the end of a fixed parking period:

"...the BPA Code of Practice provides at paragraph 13.4 for a reasonable grace period after the expiry of the fixed parking period. The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge. And, while 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."

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:00
Post #1451271

It starts with grace periods but the point is a general one about the status of the CoP.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:04
Post #1451273

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:00) *
It starts with grace periods but the point is a general one about the status of the CoP.


Okay, so go from "And, while the Code of Practice..."?
Apologies for being relatively clueless.

Posted by: cabbyman Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:20
Post #1451282

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?

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 16:31
Post #1451287

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:20) *
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?


It was purely based off of the fact it states about grace periods at the end of a fixed parking period whereas in this case it is an entry grace period. Also, it states this:

'The appeals procedure provides a degree of protection for any overstayer, who would be able to cite any special circumstances as a reason for avoiding the charge.' which surely opposes that a grace period should be upheld, regardless of what reason the overstay occurred.

Posted by: Ollyfrog Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 17:08
Post #1451302

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 14:15
Post #1452103

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?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 16:33
Post #1452182

No
Post it here
They'll see it soon enough anyway.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 14:29
Post #1452857

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 14:50
Post #1452874

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 14:54
Post #1452875

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 15:50) *
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.


Thank you very much!

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 18:39
Post #1452983

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)

Posted by: Umkomaas Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:17
Post #1453029

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 18:39) *
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:

https://www.scribd.com/document/397746568/Defence-Draft-Redacted?secret_password=ZPuUGd4AnyESoG9LlsKp

I really think you should have a look at legally qualified Bargepole's exemplar defence template in MSE's NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, that hardly runs to 16 lines, let alone 16 pages.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:36
Post #1453048

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:17) *
QUOTE (dingleberry @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 18:39) *
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:

https://www.scribd.com/document/397746568/Defence-Draft-Redacted?secret_password=ZPuUGd4AnyESoG9LlsKp

I really think you should have a look at legally qualified Bargepole's exemplar defence template in MSE's NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, that hardly runs to 16 lines, let alone 16 pages.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822


I really don't know how to condense all this down. Will I be able to provide a more detailed defence later on?

Posted by: ostell Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 23:31
Post #1453068

You can expand on your defence items when it gets to court but you need to have mentioned it first.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 09:01
Post #1453090

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:22
Post #1453209

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 10:01) *
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.


It’s not narrative but mostly excerpts from relevant case law that support my defence. Do I cut that out then?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 01:55
Post #1453374

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:

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 22:17) *
I really think you should have a look at legally qualified Bargepole's exemplar defence template in MSE's NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2, that hardly runs to 16 lines, let alone 16 pages.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822


Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 14:54
Post #1453457

Defence attempt number 2, I hope this is better?

https://www.scribd.com/document/397846666/Defence-Draft-Redacted?secret_password=uNxr7LKswoXHqH3Hk3uC

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post #1454043

Hey guys, sorry, I was wondering if I could get some feedback on my defence? Thank you.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 12:50
Post #1454074

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??

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 21:46
Post #1454299

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 08:08
Post #1454357

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 13:30
Post #1454505

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:11
Post #1454534

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:22
Post #1454544

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:11) *
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.


They have it listed as “Legal representative’s costs”.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Post #1454548

Yes, but where on the form is it listed?
In its own box, or in the PoC free text field?

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 14:27
Post #1454552

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:24) *
Yes, but where on the form is it listed?
In its own box, or in the PoC free text field?


In a box, bottom right on the court claim form:

Amount claimed: £104.08
Court fee: £35.00
Legal representative’s costs: £50

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:21
Post #1454585

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 22:31
Post #1454806

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:21) *
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.


Okay, is this better? I just reworded what you wrote:

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 ‘Legal representative 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.

Although Redivi did say that apparently a claimant can claim costs for an in house representative, is this correct?

QUOTE
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

Posted by: Umkomaas Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 07:32
Post #1454849

QUOTE
Although Redivi did say that apparently a claimant can claim costs for an in house representative, is this correct?

ParkingEye have earned millions from it! It's a standard addition in all their court claims - but if it's not challenged by the defendant, it probably just goes through 'on the nod'.

Your challenge of the add-on will be interesting.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 08:50
Post #1454866

"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!

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:10
Post #1454961

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 09:50) *
"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!


Apologies, I misunderstood, I will remove that line. If you would like to see both the claim form and the PoC they are here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/o5danvfq/

Are there any other changes needed to be made to the defence? Thank you.

Posted by: Umkomaas Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:31
Post #1454966

QUOTE
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!

Hence me saying:
QUOTE
ParkingEye have earned millions from it! It's a standard addition in all their court claims

Rachel and Rosanna are great profit centres!

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:45
Post #1454970

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?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 14:50
Post #1454973

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 22:15
Post #1455130

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 15:50) *
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.


Heres the PoC:

IN THE CCMCC BETWEEN:
PREMIER PARK LIMITED
and XXXX

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
THE PARTIES AND BACKGROUND
Claim No. XXXX

The Claimant is and was at all material times a car parking management company and has a contract dated 26 July 2016 with M&M Properties Ltd c/o London Clancy (M&M) to manage the car park owned by M&M at Vets for Pets. 102-104 Spring Road. Southampton. S019 2BN (the Car Park). In May 2018 the Car Park was taken over by Ridge Asset Management (RAM) to whom the contract was assigned.

The Defendant is and was at all material times the registered keeper of the vehicle with the registration number XXXX which on 11 May 2018 between 20:03 and 20:08 attended and remained at the Car Park for a total period of 5 minutes and in doing so entered into a contract with the Claimant.

In accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the Claimant served the Defendant with an appropriate PoFA compliant Parking Charge Notice (PCN) warning them that the driver of the vehicle was liable to pay a parking charge but that if the registered keeper failed to name the driver within 28 days of the notice they would be held liable for the parking charge in accordance with PoFA. The Defendant appealed this PCN, however failed to inform us that they were not the driver at the time of the contravention. Accordingly, under Schedule 4 of PoFA the registered Keeper is being held liable for any debt incurred by the driver under the contract for parking.

The Claimant on 18 May 2018 issued the Defendant with a PCN being an invoice raised in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties as set out in the terms and conditions which are clearly signposted in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines and which have been approved by the BPA auditing team.

The Defendant appealed the PCN via the Claimants internal appeal process, this appeal was refused as the Defendant was not a Vets4Pets customer. Following this refusal, the Defendant was provided with a code so that they could make a further appeal to the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service (POPLA) being the recognised Alternate Dispute Resolution Service which members of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme are obligated to use to consider any motorists appeal. The Defendants Appeal to POPLA was denied on 15 August 2018.

TERMS OF THE CONTRACT

The terms of the contract are set out on the signs as detailed above and contain the following information and express terms:
Sign 1:
• PRIVATE LAND. PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE. SEE ADDITIONAL SIGNS FOR FULL DETAILS.
Sign 2:
• 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.
• Vets4Pets staff and contractors must have their vehicle registered to avoid receiving a PCN.
• Park only within marked bays.
• Camera enforcement in operation. Images captured are used for parking enforcement purposes.
• Blue badge holders only in marked blue badge bays. No concessions apply.
• No stopping or waiting. If you cannot pay or register for any reason do not park.
• Parking period commences on entry.
• If you enter on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) £100.00.

The signs give the further terms and instructions that a failure to comply with the instructions will result in a charge of £100.00 becoming due which will be reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days of issue, but that this amount will increase in accordance with BPA guidelines to include additional administrative fees should the matter escalate to either debt collection or recovery at court due to the non-payment of the PCN.

In breach of the terms of parking the Defendant was not a Vets4Pets customers. In breach of contract the Defendant has failed to pay the PCN.

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT

Carrying out due diligence the Claimant has checked the working of the vehicle registration system and determined that other users were able to operate the system fully before and after the Defendant entered and excited the car park and that the system was, at all times on the day the Defendant visited the car park, in full working order.

The Defendant failed to pay the PCN at the reduced amount of £60.00 by 1 June 2018. The Defendant then failed to pay the due amount of £100.00 by 24 September 2018 when a Letter of Claim (LoC) was sent by the Claimant to the Defendant following the Pre-Action Protocol. The LoC informed the Defendant of the increased cost of the PCN in line with BPA Guidelines namely, section 23.1(b) of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, this increase is included in the claim only by way of Fixed Costs in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and interest at a rate 8%, as prescribed by the County Courts Act 1984 section 69, calculated at a daily rate of £0.02.

The Defendant has sent correspondence disputing the PCN.

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

• Damages for breach of contract in the sum of £100.00.
• Interest at a rate 8%. as prescribed by the County Courts Act 1984 section 69, calculated at a daily rate of £0.02 amounting to £4.08 and continuing to accrue at the same rate.
• Costs

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Particulars of Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.

Deputy Head of Legal Jacob Edmundson Premier Park Ltd
19 December 2018

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 08:35
Post #1455204

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

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 12:55
Post #1455297

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 09:35) *
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


The 5 minutes period isn’t even the parking period, it’s the time difference that the vehicle was captured with ANPR entering and leaving the car park. They have no evidence the car parked at all. I will add that in, thank you.

Also, this is what someone from the AOS Investigations Team at the BPA said to me via email:

“The 10 minute grace period applies to the end of the parking contract – not the start.

The entry grace period is at the Operators discretion depending on the size of the car park and how many spaces etc. If parking is not generally permitted, the grace period will be small because you won’t be able to park there unless authorised. The grace period must allow the motorist to read the signs.”

But can that even be applicable if it’s not explicitly stated in the CoP?

Posted by: Glacier2 Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 13:25
Post #1455306

It will be interesting to see if they pay the hearing fee. Which firm of solicitors is representing them?

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 14:00
Post #1455318

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 14:25) *
It will be interesting to see if they pay the hearing fee. Which firm of solicitors is representing them?


It looks like they are representing themselves.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 13:43
Post #1456332

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:35
Post #1456373

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:36
Post #1456437

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:35) *
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.


It’s numbered in the document, for some reason pasteing from the document doesn’t copy over the formatting to here.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 23:09
Post #1456587

QUOTE
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’ .

Then above are not 'case law'. They are just County Court decisions that you can suggest are on all fours with your own case. No precedent, no 'case law'.

The defence looks good to me.

Later on at WS and evidence stage, you can use this BPA article as evidence that there is definitely a thign called an 'observation period' to decide if you will stay or go:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

See the article under his grinning mug. He has really helped load of people with that article over the years!

QUOTE
Deputy Head of Legal Jacob Edmundson


Just read that utter drivel from the above, he should be ashamed of this one. Five minutes indeed, despite the BPA CoP. Scammery extraordinaire

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 14:21
Post #1456743

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 00:09) *
QUOTE
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’ .

Then above are not 'case law'. They are just County Court decisions that you can suggest are on all fours with your own case. No precedent, no 'case law'.

The defence looks good to me.

Later on at WS and evidence stage, you can use this BPA article as evidence that there is definitely a thign called an 'observation period' to decide if you will stay or go:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

See the article under his grinning mug. He has really helped load of people with that article over the years!

QUOTE
Deputy Head of Legal Jacob Edmundson


Just read that utter drivel from the above, he should be ashamed of this one. Five minutes indeed, despite the BPA CoP. Scammery extraordinaire


Thank you, I have made the necessary alterations, that article is very very helpful, thank you very much SRM!

Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 14:40
Post #1456755

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 21:47
Post #1462821

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.

Posted by: Glacier2 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 - 23:45
Post #1462843

It could take a month or more.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:30
Post #1462988

Check mcol
See what it says
That's the first place to check. We can't tell you more than the actual court...

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:35
Post #1462991

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:30) *
Check mcol
See what it says
That's the first place to check. We can't tell you more than the actual court...


This claim was done as a paper claim, not through MCOL.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:28
Post #1463008

You got the paperwork but it was probably raised online. Did you get a web page address and a password on the claim form?

Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:31
Post #1463009

Premier Park issue manual claims via Stockport CC.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:40
Post #1463010

Thanks

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 20:56
Post #1463016

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

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 19:07
Post #1464353

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?

Posted by: Glacier2 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 - 20:25
Post #1464374

Only engage with them via the courts.

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 01:06
Post #1464421

NEVER speak to them by phone. Only ever in writing so that you have a record.

Posted by: dingleberry Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 12:17
Post #1467023

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.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 20:30
Post #1467121

Between a business and private individual then the preference of the individual takes precedence. Agree to mediation, if nothing gets agreed then nothing lost

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 18:36
Post #1499309

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.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 18:51
Post #1499314

Good stuff.

Ignoring is still generally not advised. They do have 6 years to raise a claim.

Posted by: Glacier2 Thu, 11 Jul 2019 - 19:33
Post #1499344

They have 6 years to claim. Parking companies often sell their back catalogues of old charges to BBL/Gladstones years later.


Posted by: Redivi Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 07:08
Post #1499425

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 ?

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 22:52
Post #1499652

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 08:08) *
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 ?


They were threatening it because I think they knew it was never going to court, they said it to try and get me to pay. I can’t imagine the judge would have been too impressed.

Posted by: Bendo Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 06:45
Post #1499662

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.

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 09:47
Post #1501168

QUOTE (Bendo @ Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 07:45) *
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.


In their Privacy Policy it states this:

"Please note that your rights are not absolute and may not prevent or restrict our processing your Personal Data should such processing be for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims (ie. Where we may process your Personal Data for the purpose of Court action to enforce a PCN or other debt) or where our legitimate interests may override your interests, rights and freedoms in accordances with current legislation. Should you request a restriction on processing which we reasonably consider to be manifestly unfound or excessive we may refuse such request unless you pay a reasonable fee to allow us to deal with the request.

Reasonable fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of £20 per hour to be spent dealing with such a request together with reasonable photocopying and postage costs. Such fees will be charged in advance based on a reasonable estimate of the time to be taken in complying with the request but, should this estimate be insufficient, a balancing payment for any additional administrative time may be charged before your request is actioned. Should any extra fee be paid (in excess of 15 minutes or £5) compared to the time spent this be returned to you when the request is actioned."

Would this apply to a SAR request? Should I still go ahead with one? I don't want to do it and then for them to send me a wad of documents and a bill at the end, which I really would not be surprised if they did.

Posted by: ManxRed Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 09:57
Post #1501171

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 10:47) *
QUOTE (Bendo @ Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 07:45) *
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.


In their Privacy Policy it states this:

"Please note that your rights are not absolute and may not prevent or restrict our processing your Personal Data should such processing be for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims (ie. Where we may process your Personal Data for the purpose of Court action to enforce a PCN or other debt) or where our legitimate interests may override your interests, rights and freedoms in accordances with current legislation. Should you request a restriction on processing which we reasonably consider to be manifestly unfound or excessive we may refuse such request unless you pay a reasonable fee to allow us to deal with the request.

Reasonable fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of £20 per hour to be spent dealing with such a request together with reasonable photocopying and postage costs. Such fees will be charged in advance based on a reasonable estimate of the time to be taken in complying with the request but, should this estimate be insufficient, a balancing payment for any additional administrative time may be charged before your request is actioned. Should any extra fee be paid (in excess of 15 minutes or £5) compared to the time spent this be returned to you when the request is actioned."

Would this apply to a SAR request? Should I still go ahead with one? I don't want to do it and then for them to send me a wad of documents and a bill at the end, which I really would not be surprised if they did.


I would. Send them a shovel as well, in case they struggle to dig themselves a deep enough hole with the above language!

Posted by: Umkomaas Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 10:11
Post #1501173

QUOTE
Reasonable fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of £20 per hour to be spent dealing with such a request together with reasonable photocopying and postage costs. Such fees will be charged in advance based on a reasonable estimate of the time to be taken in complying with the request but, should this estimate be insufficient, a balancing payment for any additional administrative time may be charged before your request is actioned. Should any extra fee be paid (in excess of 15 minutes or £5) compared to the time spent this be returned to you when the request is actioned."

I'd be hanging on to that and use in the event of a court claim, where, if you win, you claim your own costs against them. £20 an hour - they've set the bar. What's sauce for the goose .......!

Posted by: dingleberry Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 10:20
Post #1501176

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 11:11) *
QUOTE
Reasonable fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of £20 per hour to be spent dealing with such a request together with reasonable photocopying and postage costs. Such fees will be charged in advance based on a reasonable estimate of the time to be taken in complying with the request but, should this estimate be insufficient, a balancing payment for any additional administrative time may be charged before your request is actioned. Should any extra fee be paid (in excess of 15 minutes or £5) compared to the time spent this be returned to you when the request is actioned."

I'd be hanging on to that and use in the event of a court claim, where, if you win, you claim your own costs against them. £20 an hour - they've set the bar. What's sauce for the goose .......!


I already had the court claim, filed defence etc and then the confirmation of discontinuation of the claim came through recently. I also intend on reporting the Litigation Caseworker to the SRA and reporting their non compliance with the BPA CoP to the BPA, whether they'll care is a different story but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 12:46
Post #1501249

REstriction of processing is NOT A SAR. Utterly different.

Posted by: Umkomaas Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 21:06
Post #1501387

QUOTE (dingleberry @ Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 10:20) *
QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 19 Jul 2019 - 11:11) *
QUOTE
Reasonable fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of £20 per hour to be spent dealing with such a request together with reasonable photocopying and postage costs. Such fees will be charged in advance based on a reasonable estimate of the time to be taken in complying with the request but, should this estimate be insufficient, a balancing payment for any additional administrative time may be charged before your request is actioned. Should any extra fee be paid (in excess of 15 minutes or £5) compared to the time spent this be returned to you when the request is actioned."

I'd be hanging on to that and use in the event of a court claim, where, if you win, you claim your own costs against them. £20 an hour - they've set the bar. What's sauce for the goose .......!


I already had the court claim, filed defence etc and then the confirmation of discontinuation of the claim came through recently. I also intend on reporting the Litigation Caseworker to the SRA and reporting their non compliance with the BPA CoP to the BPA, whether they'll care is a different story but I'm gonna do it anyway.

Sorry, missed that. I drop in here infrequently so don't keep detailed tabs on lots of the cases; I spend most of my time on MoneySavingExpert private parking forum.

Posted by: dingleberry Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 22:53
Post #1515790

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?!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 07:53
Post #1515819

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.

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 08:08
Post #1515826

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.

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 08:30
Post #1515831

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


Posted by: dingleberry Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:29
Post #1515908

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 09:08) *
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.


Is this a breach of GDPR according to their policies? I have attached a link showing what they sent me with the discontinuation of claim:

https://postimg.cc/gallery/lo4t766u/

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:04
Post #1515925

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.

Posted by: Slatz Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 09:28
Post #1516200

Post your LBA up here for critique too.

Let's make sure you get them where it hurts, in their pocket.

Posted by: dingleberry Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 14:01
Post #1516621

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)