Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Supasta on August 12, 2024, 10:10:17 am
-
Plan A strikes again. Well done.
-
Thank you all for the advice.
I have just had an email from the Arena Shopping Management who have got the PCN cancelled for me. Im glad to not have to bang my head against this but its such a shame as to how easily they will try and rip of the ordinary motorist.
-
Whilst I don't disagree with the point being made, we all know that the operator will not consider de minimis and neither will POPLA. Mitigation does not come into it.
If it ever does go as far as court claim, then of course it will be raised and that's assuming it ever got as far as a hearing. However, expecting a de minimis argument to even be considered by the operator or POPLA is a fantasy.
-
OP, I'm not against you raising the PoFA point that b789 raises. I'm just of the view that you should also mention the issue of de-minimis (worded so as not to identify the driver).
If it were to get to court, and your defence raised this point, a judge might reasonably wonder why you didn't seek to raise it with the parking company at an earlier stage...
-
POPLA is more likely than not going to reject the appeal. No big deal. Let them try to take it to court where the only truly independent arbiter, a judge would decide whether the keeper owes a debt.
Do whatever you feel is best for POPLA. You know my advice. Take it or leave it. It’s just a speculative novice. You try to get the landowner or their agent to cancel it. You appeal to the operator, for what it’s worth and they will reject it no matter how wordy or how much effort you put into it. You appeal to POPLA and argue as many points of law and CoP as you can and if they agree, it’s a win. If they don’t, no big deal. You move on the the ultimate dispute resolution service where they may or may not try to pursue the keeper.
To date I have a 100% success rate. You can worry about the content and what the POPLA assessors have for breakfast. It really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. As my district judge family member has told me, “some of those forum members are really anal about it”.
Just prepare for the possibility that eventually, you may need to defend a claim in the small claims track of the county court. Or, you may not.
-
OP, in answer to your question.
Template nonsense IMO. It's of another time and era.
Why ALL in capitals? Does it carry any more meaning or have any more effect? No, of course not.
Have the operators read it all before? Of course.
Vague template! If there's a vague template around, it's not the creditor's. It states clearly: Not parked wholly within a bay.(although there's a debate to be had about the meaning of 'within', particularly in the context of its regulatory interpretation on-street)
Predatory behaviour! They're an approved operator under the BPA Code of Practice, the BPA being an Accredited Trade Association.
They'll have a contract to manage parking.
But these oh-so-enticing apparently silver bullet templates presented with such bravura are still on the internet.
-
So You would agree with the appeal point put forward by HC Andersen in that case or do you have a different view point?
Thanks again to everyone thats helping.
To do it vice-versa risks you missing the contractor's appeals deadline while you wait for a reply from Tesco
Only if they let the appeal deadline pass. My personal view is that contacting Tesco first is wise. If they intervene, no need to faff about with Premier.
I think I disagree with b789's suggested appeal here. Where one has a meritoious point about the actual alleged breach (ie how marginal it is), my view is this should be front and centre.
Technical appeal points have their place, but where there's a strong reason the charge shouldn't have been issued at all, this should be raised.
-
To do it vice-versa risks you missing the contractor's appeals deadline while you wait for a reply from Tesco
Only if they let the appeal deadline pass. My personal view is that contacting Tesco first is wise. If they intervene, no need to faff about with Premier.
I think I disagree with b789's suggested appeal here. Where one has a meritoious point about the actual alleged breach (ie how marginal it is), my view is this should be front and centre.
Technical appeal points have their place, but where there's a strong reason the charge shouldn't have been issued at all, this should be raised.
-
Appreciate the input HC Andersen.
This is still very early days so I'll give Tesco and arena shopping admin till the later end of this week and if I don't hear back from them, then I'll submit the appeal to PP which should still be within 14 days.
Are you of the opinion that I shouldn't use the below text and use what you have suggested?
Thanks
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, namely no "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge as per paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.
Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegations and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code.
-
Shame.
I suggested the following while you were typing!
'We, the creditor, now request this amount is paid....and if you were not the driver...' which is a direct quote from the PCN would, IMO, be accepted as an invitation to the keeper to pay, after all the PCN's addressed to the keeper.
OP, IMO you should appeal to Premier Park and then to Tesco in that order.
You appeal to PP in such a way as to invite them to ridicule your claim to de minimis, even assuming one accepts a breach at all, and to not give due regard to the BB and your/your passenger's needs. You would also point out no-one was impeded or inconvenienced and that elsewhere in the car park, as indeed is common practice with all off-street car park providers and a regulatory requirement on-street, the designated bays for the disabled are wider than those for other cars for the obvious reason that in general they require more free space to enter/exit their vehicles. It could not have escaped the attendant's notice that a BB was displayed and therefore more room needed. You accept that it was not a designated bay, but cannot imagine that Tesco intend that BB holders should drive off without shopping simply because they cannot access a disabled bay for fear that an employee of their parking contractor believes that these drivers are fair game for £100 parking charge simply because they need a little extra space in a regular bay.
A BB holder's needs don't change simply because they cannot park in a disabled bay.
As thick as you like to make it.
AND THEN if they reject you go to Tesco with your appeal and appeal and say 'I tried the method you advise in your store and this is the considered response of your contractor. I would kindly ask that you exercise better judgement and instruct them to cancel'. But you're not there yet.
To do it vice-versa risks you missing the contractor's appeals deadline while you wait for a reply from Tesco and the contractor disregarding because you then submit an appeal late.
There will be other views, but do not wait too long and risk missing the PCN deadline.
-
Thanks.
I've shot an email to the tesco CEO and have also sent the same email to the Arena Shopping Park management as well.
Shall I wait a few days before submitting the formal appeal to PP?
Cheers.
-
You email a complaint to the Tesco CEO Ken Murphy ken.murphy@uk.tesco.com
You explain how, as a long term loyal customer, you do not expect to be invoiced by an unregulated private parking company for £100 just for being a patron of the store. You ask that they get their agent to cancel the PCN which, is for a de minimus cause and was due to there being insufficient parking slots available for customers with a disability. Maybe you needed to park a few inches over to allow for access to the side of the car.
Just tell them that you have a choice of supermarkets to shop at and you, your family and friends will be wary of ever using this store again if they allow their agent to act in a unfair manner.
For your appeal, simply state the following:
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, namely no "invitation", or any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge as per paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn.
Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegations and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
I suggest you cancel the PCN or issue me with a POPLA code.
-
Thank you all.
Will try and contact Tesco but I noticed previously that there was a big sign on the front doors saying to contact Premier Park in case of any parking issues and not contact Tesco. I presume they have had issues in the past. I will take a Look at the signage to see what other details are there.
There were no disabled bays available hence why it was parked in a normal bay.
What grounds would I submit an appeal on to PP (and further to POPLA if required)? Is the driver not technically still in breach of their "laws"? How does one argue against it? Can I use the unclear photos to my advantage?
-
Was there a reason the driver did not park in a blue badge bay? Under no circumstances identify the driver. You will be appealing as the keeper of the vehicle.
PP have no idea who the driver is. The keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company.
There is a failure to fully comply with PoFA which means that the keeper cannot be liable for the charge. If the driver is not identified… Catch-22.
In order to fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the keeper liable, they should have complied with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of the Act. They haven’t. There is no “invitation”, nor any synonym of the word, for the keeper to pay the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance or not sufficient.
As for your Plan A, try and find out the managing agent for the land. If it is a retail park, you will often find the name of the managing agent on the advertising plinth that has all the names of the shops or businesses at the site.
Do not miss the deadline to do your Plan B appeal to the operator. They will reject, guaranteed, but you will then get a POPLA code for your Plan C appeal.
Please show us what you intend to put in your appeal before you submit anything.
I have also noticed another flaw in the Notice to Keeper (NtK). It says you have to make payment within 29 days. You actually have 28 days after the NtK has been given to you, which is two working days after it is issued. They claim it was issued on Saturday 3rd August. That means it was given to you on Tuesday 6th August. Therefore, the payment is not due (not that you’ll be paying a penny) until Tuesday 3rd September. It will be interesting to see if they try to initiate debt collection reminders before this date. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which is useful for thenPOPLA appeal.
-
As above. We usually always recommend contacting the landowners, but this is a very good example of a case where you should. I doubt whoever hired the parking company intended for them to be brought in to charge motorists who parked with their wheel a few cm over the line, in an end bay causing absolutely no obstruction.
-
Another example of the cowboy attitude still going on to try and get a few more pounds out of the motorist.
It would be worth contacting the owners of the site, if it is multiple shops and complaining to them about the tactics of this PPC over trivial issues.
-
Hi all.
A disabled driver got this parking ticket for parking just on the white line - the line isn’t clearly visible in the photo but the car is not over it completely. Are there any grounds for appeal on this? A
lso just for completion sake blue badge was displayed but this wasn’t a disabled spot.
Image of notice is here - https://imgur.com/a/BPTAX58