Parking charge from PremierPark Ltd

[WilburJaguar]

Hello all!

I'm in need of a bit of help with a parking charge which I received in the post on January 10th, regarding a charge incurred on December 31st - from PremierPark Ltd.

I've read lots of helpful forum posts on this topic and the ways of dealing with these PPCs successfully and wondered if I might be able to get some advice before I go back to PremierPark to appeal (Not stating the driver's information etc - great point!). Is it best advice to appeal firstly to PremierPark Ltd and then to POPLA if necessary? I'm not very sure on the process...

As mentioned in the attached image showing the notice with redacted information; the charge refers to an alleged overstay of paid parking time. My reasoning for appealing this charge is as follows:

*- This notice fails to show the time which the driver paid for when parking.
*- The charged amount is unreasonably high in relation to the incurred costs, as a result of the driver allegedly overstaying their paid time. Surely this charge should only require coverage of the cost of paying for the extra time which was allegedly required.

I wondered if any of you helpful chappies might be able to see anything else wrong with this notice from PremierPark Ltd, that I might be able to include it in my appeal to them?

Regards and thanks for reading my post!

[ostell]

Compare it with the requirements of POFA* and see what's missing.

9 (2) (a), no period of parking.* Moving in front of a camera cannot be parking

9 (2) (e), no invitation to keeper in the format prescribed

9 (2) (h), no creditor identified.

There may be others.

[WilburJaguar]

Thanks for your response Ostell!

I've done a comparison of the POFA requirements and the NTK and would like to clarify with you (if possible) that I understand what is to be appealed - as below:

9 (2)(a) The notice must: "state the period of parking". The NTK shows this as being 2:30hrs but fails to provide evidence of my parking since moving in front of a camera cannot be parking. Hence, the period of 2:30hrs is not a relied on as being the period of parking, and so fails to meet this requirement. Is this correct?

9 (2)(e)*The notice must: "state that the creditor does not know both the name...and address of the driver." The NTK does not state that they do not know the name of the driver and their address, and so fails to meet this requirement. Is this correct?

9 (2)(f) The notice must: "warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days...." The NTK states the following: "You are advised that if, after a period of 29 days..." Am I correct in thinking that, as the period of time is not consistent with the requirements of this section of POFA, it fails to meet this requirement?

9 (2)(h) The notice must: "identify the creditor and specify how... payment ... may be made". The NTK shows a section in the bottom-right stating that payment is payable to Premier Park Ltd. Is this evidence of identifying the creditor?

Also, regarding how payment is made: the NTK has a template statement as follows: "I enclose a cheque/postal order for the amount of: ..... made payable to Premier Park Ltd." Is this evidence of identifying how payment can be made?

Do these two points - if correct - mean the this notice fails to meet the requirements of this section of POFA?


I recognise that this is a big ask and appreciate any advice you can give, as well as the advice you've already provided. Thank you very much!

[ostell]

the 29 days statement, which is not the same as POFA, gives the correct timing and probably not worth arguing against.* POFA states 28 days from the day following....

They have to identify the creditor, making that statement.* They could be collecting on behalf of the creditor.

[WilburJaguar]

Okay, I thought not but in the world of legal wording, thought to check!

And with the creditor statement, that makes sense; so I'll omit this point from my appeal.

I'm sorry to ask and ask, but is everything else worth noting in my appeal? I.E: not stating they don't know the driver, parking period etc...

Thanks again for your quick response

[ostell]

They HAVE to specifically identify the creditor. Leave it in your appeal

[WilburJaguar]

Ahh okay, I understand your previous message now, thanks a lot for your help.

I'll come back to this post with an update once I receive a response to my appeal.

[ostell]

Why not post up your appeal for critique

[WilburJaguar]

Hello Ostell, good idea!

I've added a redacted version below for your analysis - I will (presuming all is well) post this appeal tomorrow.

You may notice I've pinched ideas from other appellants to help structure (as I'm new to this), but if they don't fit, do let me know

Any advice you have is greatly appreciated.

Reference PCN: XXXXXXX


I* am writing with regard to the parking charge notice (ref: XXXXXXX) You (PremierPark Ltd, referred to as You thusly) issued on January 7th, to myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned - any liability or contractual agreement is denied. I am appealing Your parking charge notice as the keeper of the concerned vehicle. There will be no admissions as to who was driving, as is my legal right and no assumptions can be made from this appeal.


As this Notice to Keeper (referred to as NTK hereafter) relates to the alleged issue of whole period of parking not paid for, I require You send all photos taken concerning this case and any further evidence You can show.


I dispute Your notice on the grounds as follows, which directly infringe on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (referred to as POFA hereafter), which sets out the statement that failure to adhere to all conditions contained within Schedule 4 of the POFA will result in no action or liability allowed to be taken against the registered keeper of this vehicle, since transfer of liability is denied. My points to support this are given thusly:
*

1. Section 9 (2)(a) of Schedule 4 of the POFA states that a valid NTK “must specify.. ..the period of parking to which the notice relates.” This notice fails to show the period of parking paid for given that there are only two photographs supplied, showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. Since these only show the vehicle when moving, it cannot be given as evidence of parking therefore, to state that this is evidence of the period of parking is invalid and fails to meet this section of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

*

1. *
   1. Section 9 (2)(e) of Schedule 4 of POFA states that a valid NTK “must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.” Having read Your NTK, I point out that there is no statement contained within, which states that You do not know this information. As such, the NTK provided fails to meet this section of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
   2. This same section of Schedule 4 of the POFA also extends to state that the NTK must “invite the keeper to notify [You] of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.” I cannot find information on Your NTK which states that I must pass the notice onto the driver, meaning Your NTK fails to meet this condition of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

As such, I must conclude that there is a lack of/no information set out as described by Schedule 4, Section 9 (2)(e).
*

1. Section 9 (2)(h) of the POFA sets out that for an NTK to be valid, the notice “must identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.” The NTK I have received fails to inform me of the Creditor - as described by Section 2 (1) stating that a Creditor is a person -* to which payment would be made. It also fails to inform me if You are collecting monies on behalf of the creditor.

I also add the following points onto those aforementioned, which support my appeal:
*

1. The allegation of Whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For fails to evidence the information indicative of the actual grace period for entering and exiting the car park, as agreed by the landowner. As such, I require evidence of this agreement and failure to provide this will act as further evidence to support my appeal.

*

1. The amount proposed to be charged is disproportionate to the amount of losses which can occur from such an allegation of Whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For. I find this to be an attempt at pushing a recipient of such a NTK towards paying the ‘charge’ under duress and without further escalation. I require evidence of how You come to calculate this disproportionate figure based on the set prices for parking at this location.
   An alleged overstay of 30 minutes can hypothetically be offset by purchasing an extra hour’s time at the cost stated- not matching that of the figure presented in your NTK.

To conclude, the reasons for appealing this NTK are that it fails to adhere to the conditions of Schedule 4 of the POFA; as such, liability of this charge cannot be transferred to the registered keeper of the vehicle if the required information of the driver cannot be obtained. The NTK also fails to evidence information of a grace period as agreed by the landowner, as well as imposing a disproportionate charge.


Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the information in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service in the future.


Yours faithfully,


(My name and address of keeper)

[ostell]

Forget the paragraph about losses, it doesn't come into it

The liability falls on the KEEPER.

[WilburJaguar]

Okay, I've taken this part out. I take it all else looks good, so I'll submit this appeal letter tomorrow and will update this thread as it progress.

Thanks again for your assistance!