Premier Park PCN |
Premier Park PCN |
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 00:16
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 17 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,441 |
Hi all,
Just after a few quick pointers please, in the past couple of weeks I have had a PCN throught from Premier Park relating to a visit to Brixham Marina car park which uses ANPR but issues tickets that are easily mistaken for being Pay and Display if the driver isn't paying attention. The PCN was received within a week of parking. The PCN makes Premier Parks usual mistake of stating "if within 29 days" etc More importantly the PCN states it was issued for the reason "Whole period of parking not paid for" This is not true and the printed ticket clearly shows that 4 hours were paid for (although the driver beleives that 5 hours worth of coins were fed into the machine) and the correct reg no is printed on the ticket. Unfortunately the missing 5th hour has resulted in a 25 minute overstay but the PCN only mentions whole period not paid for, Any advice on the next course of action would be appreciated. Thanks |
|
|
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 08:47
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
The fact that they back down so often, as do a lot of other companies, just goes to show that they use the court system merely as a weapon to intimidate.
Well done on sticking it to them. -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 08:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 - 13:58
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 17 Jan 2013 Member No.: 59,441 |
So they issued a claim shortly after the POPLA verdict? Yes, POPLA found for them basically ignoring some of my points and I couldn't be bother with complaining to POPLA so at that point I sent them an erasure request stating they had no legitimate interest in holding my PI but if they felt they did they should initiate proceedings. They elected to start a claim at that point but backed down just before they would have had to pay the hearing fee. The fact that they back down so often, as do a lot of other companies, just goes to show that they use the court system merely as a weapon to intimidate. Well done on sticking it to them. Absolutely, wasn't POFA supposed to reduce the burden on the court system with these pointless claims? Perhaps parliament should be looking at it again and barring companies from making claims when they drop a certain percentage. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:09 |