PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Premier Park - Falmouth Maritime Museum car park
Gooner35
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 12:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



Hi all,

I am hoping you can assist regarding a PCN notice that was issued to a driver for parking in the Maritime Museum car park earlier in July.

The driver parked up in the car park and after some deliberation used the JustGo web based site to purchase three hours parking time for the car park accordingly, they then continued on with their day. They realised during the initial period that additional time was going to be required and as such extened the parking by a further hour initially hoping this would be sufficient, all was processed succesfully. They then tried to extend by a further hour due to needing the further time and at this point when additional time was attempted to be added via the website the process failed (screen shot available and attached), they attempted mutliple times to the same result and thus decided to return to the vehicle. Due to their location this took them beyond the allowed time by 38 minutes and they subsequently exited the car park as swiftly as possible.

A PCN was then recieved from Premier Park, at the point the driver raised an appeal and provided the information above along with the supporting screenshot failure, Permier Park rejected this on the basis below:-

QUOTE
Your vehicle overstayed your paid parking period. We have located 2 transactions totalling 4 hours parking for your vehicle but as you remained on site for 4 hours and 38 minutes. We note the comments made in your appeal and the evidence you have provided and must advise that if you were experiencing difficulties using the payment method, RingGo, we would advise you raise the query with RingGo as they are a separate company to Premier Park Ltd. As your vehicle remained on site in excess of your paid parking period, we can confirm that this PCN has been issued to you correctly.


The driver has now contacted JustGo to ask them if they will cover the costs of the PCN due to the cause being as a result of the failure of the website to take the additional time but it is not certain what their response and subseuent outcome will be.

As such they wanted to query with yourselves as to the possible stances to take regarding this?

Attached is also an image of the signage for the car park in question, with the forums initimate knowledge is there any limited on the time available to stay in the car park?

Thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by Gooner35: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 14:53
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 12:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 11:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes! Because thats the most important bit!

No keeper liability, then the appeal succeeds. Done.

Yes. You ppoint out that as their AGENT failed, then the failure to make payment was the fault of the OPERATOR and no charge could have been issued in that case, as the OPERATOR made teh error.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 12:22
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



Thank you, comments to the evidence pack will be as below;

QUOTE
In the evidence provided the Operator has not provided a response to the items raised regarding the failure of the Parking Charge Notice in relation to PoFA2012.

In addition, the Operator has confirmed in their evidence that the rules applied to the car park in question by their web based payment facility provided by their Agent, RingGo, were in fact incorrect and thus unjustly denied the driver the ability to add sufficient time to the stay. This failure led the driver to believe there was a maximum stay limit within the car park and therefore they exited the location as switfly as possible and did not consider applying additional time due to the mis-information fedback by the Agents web payment facility. They had intially considered the T&Cs but this was then confused by the incorrect feedback from RingGo as such swaying the drivers understanding and causing the confusion. In summary the resultant error was iniated and instigated by a failure on the side of RingGo acting on behalf of Premier Park who must then accept the cause of the incorrect payment being directly attributable to them not ensuring due diligence in the rules applied by their contracted agents.

Further to this, the appeal response from Premier Park is based on a template as they have rebuked the appeal based on the claim that the Parking Charge Notice is punitive and unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. At no point within the appeal grounds was this element queried or highlighted as an item for review, thus the response appears to be directly related to previous responses and not directly at the appeal made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 13:58
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



- as the operator has failed to rebut the appeal point that the NtK was deficient with regards to POFA2012, the Operator has accepted this appeal point and thus the appeal must be upheld.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 14:26
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



Thank Nosferatu, I added your line in place of my opening gambit and have now submitted the comments to POPLA, now to sit back and wait for the outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 10:50
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



So finally got a response from Popla whereby they have rejected the appeal claim, feedback from the review is below:-

Assessor Summary of case:

QUOTE
The appellant’s case is that the motorist paid for four hours of parking over two payments. She states that they made a further attempt to extend their stay, however the web facility failed and would not allow them to. The appellant advises that the motorist took the ferry back to their vehicle to remove it from the car park, however this led them to overstay. She states that they were not aware that they were being pursued as they were unable to purchase more than four hours of parking time. The appellant states that there are no signs to advise of the maximum parking time permitted. She believes that she is being pursued for the wrong reason and has disputed the adequacy of the signage. The appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appellant has provided evidence of the payment failed and the signage to support her appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision

QUOTE
"Joe Bloggs has identified himself as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event within his appeal to the operator, and therefore, I am considering the Joe Bloggs’s liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. In this specific car park, the terms and conditions state: “Please pay for your stay. Charges apply 7 days a week including bank holidays. Up to 4 hours…£6.00. How to pay: pay at machine or pay by phone. If you enter or park on this land contravening the terms and conditions displayed, you are agreeing to pay: PCN £100”. The operator has issued the PCN as the motorist did not make sufficient payment for the duration of their stay. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the vehicle entered the car park at 10:51 and exited at 15:30 on the day in question, staying for a total of four hours and 39 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that the motorist only made sufficient payment to park at the site for up to four hours. In response, the appellant states that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). In order for the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA 2012 must be adhered to. For example, the notice to keeper must be issued within 14 days of the parking event. As the motorist has identified himself as the driver within his initial appeal to the operator, PoFA 2012 does not apply in this case. The operator does not need to adhere to the provisions set out in PoFA 2012, as it is not seeking to transfer liability for the charge. The appellant states that they tried to extend their stay using the web facility, however it would not allow them to. She states that the motorist took the ferry back to their vehicle to remove it from the car park, however this led them to overstay. While I acknowledge this to be the case, I would consider the length of the overstay to be an unreasonable amount of time for a motorist to leave the site upon discovering they were unable to purchase sufficient parking time in any instance. Not only does the site offer the facility to pay by phone, but to pay by machine. I am satisfied that the motorist would have purchased additional time at the machine before leaving, should the RingGo service have been down. The appellant then states that they were advised by the RingGo staff that the maximum stay in the car park was four hours and this is why they could not purchase additional time. She believes that they are being pursued for the wrong reason and states that the signage does not advise of a maximum stay time. While I acknowledge the appellant’s evidence to demonstrate that she was indeed given incorrect information by RingGo, RingGo is a third party service used solely to take payments on behalf of the operator. As such, it is not their duty to advise of the parking restrictions. The contract formed when parking is between the motorist and the operator through the terms and conditions set out on the signage, any third party advice would have no bearing on the validity of this contract. In this case, the PCN was issued as the motorist did not make sufficient payment for the duration of their stay and I am satisfied that this is the correct reason. The signage does not state that there is a maximum stay, as there is not one at this site and there is no requirement for it to be stated on the signs. As the motorist purchased a ticket, I am satisfied that they were fully aware of the parking conditions as displayed on the signage. 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 remained at the site without having made sufficient payment, he has failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused."


P***ed off is an understatement!

I can only assume when first appealed to Premier Park, which was done before accessing this forum, and identification as to the drivers identity must've been made in some way, so that is down to haste in appealing without suitable investigation in advance.

However, they are exhonerating Premier Park from the failures of their third party provider as it is not the third party providers responsibility to advise on the parking restrictsion, but surely it is Premier Parks responsibility to ensure their agents are not incorrectly restricting those parking to pay the fines.

They also indicated that the length of overstay was an unreasonable amount of time to return to the site. The attempt to extend the time at in advance of the expiry, which was due to be 14:50, would have been around 14:30-14:40. It then took 1 hour to return and remove the vehicle, which in normal circumstances seems excessive, however when you consider that the return journey was via ferry which operated on the hour with a 20 minute journey time and then the walk back to the vehicle the timings are the quickest return possible. The next ferry left at 15:00, arriving (if running to time) at 15:20 leaving 10 minutes to return to the vehicle, with the walk estimated at 5 minutes and a minute or so to sort car and leave, as such the timings are almost spot on.

The ticket is not being paid regardless, if the fault purely lied with those involved fair enough, but the evidence clearly shows confusion brought about by the failure of an agent employed by Premier Park. What are the options for prorgessing the appeal as we are unusre as to the next steps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:03
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well yes if the driver was revealed then POFA is useless as an appeal point.

POPLA NVEER understands frustration of contract, which is what youre potentially arguing here - that the app failed and would not let you extend stay nor did it indicate that this wasnt possible, btoh of which are the control of the pincipal to this arrangement and not the customer. You were ENTITLED to rely upon the information in the application. CRA2015, because the prinicpal has chosen to allow communication in this method.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:11
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



Thanks Nosferatu, admit that placed a shot squarely in our own foot if driver identity was revealed, but know for next time.

Agreed, if the information provided by the app was accurate and allowed the additional time there would have been no failure, the fact the policies instilled in the app were incorrect is the root cause of the whole situation. It also negates the point made about paying by phone as the same feedback would have been given unless the rules applied by a telephone agent were not the same as the app, which seems unlikely considering the feedback from JustGo.

So would the next step to be to seek advice from someone like Citizens Advice, or is there another appeal method to be followed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 11:57
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



No appeal after POPLA, just wait to see if they take it to court

Guess who wrote the advice script for Citizens Advice? Non other than the BPA so you can imagine what it will say
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:15
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



NEVER use CAB for this
Their advice was written*by the PPCs* and is utterly, utterly useless

What youc ould do is preemptively reject POPLAs decision, citing the reasons why - the failure of THEIR agent to correctly implement the parking scheme, which you relied upon as is your RIGHT under CRA2015 - and note that in any case where there are contradictory or ambiguous terms, the same CRA2015 dictates the interpretation most favourable to the consumer msut be used

AS such you were entitled to extend as the app pgave this option
Thererofre the refusal to do so was of their agents cause, not your own, and youre not liable for this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:48
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



OK, I will avoid CAB without fail.

Who would I reject the POPLA decision with and what would the process be (or is there a link I can review for the information).

Would the other course of action be to just sit tight and see if Premier Park progress the case, I assume the next thing will be a series of chasing letters and then finally a court case if they wished to proceed to that extent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 12:51
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



With the PPC of course
POPLA doesnt do antyhing now
There isnt a process. There is none for this. Its a letter, thats it.

You can sit tight
This means youre first out the gate and you get your reasnos down NOW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 13:52
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



OK, so send a letter to the PPC (in this case Premier Park, unless I am misconstruing the PPC term) and outline that I reject POPLAs decision on the grounds cited and then wait for them to make the next move?

Apologies for all the question, but with my mess up with the initial appeal I want to make sure I full understand everything before committing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 07:19
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes
You ahve to realise that - short f paying - youre not in real control of this process now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 15:17
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



So, already have recived the first demand letter, that didn't take them long (see attached)!!

Currently pawing through the CRA 2015 to try and reference the relevant areas in the letter to Premier Park but am struggling to pin them down, could anyone guidance in the right direction in relation to the sections and subsections that should be referenced. Trying to make doubley sure on everything due to the previous mistakes regarding the appeal.

This post has been edited by Gooner35: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 15:17
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 09:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Final demands etc are ignored
Only bother about LBA or court claim forms. Examples found every where.

CRA2015 - the right to rely upon written or verbal information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gooner35
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 12:51
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 26 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,956



I have attached a draft of the letter to be sent ot Premier Park outlining my current stance in line with the suggestions made.

Does it cover the required information or do I need to be more concise on the failures in relation to the the consumer rights act?

Also, my punitive offer to pay the outstanding £2-00 is that a realistic approach or does that open me up to further queries?
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Premier_Park___Rejection_of_Popla_Decision.pdf ( 161.03K ) Number of downloads: 41
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 09:00
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here