Hi all,
In March last year, I, as the registered keeper, received a charge notice from Premier Park alleging that the vehicle was not parked wholly within a bay. From the photographic evidence, it can be seen that the vehicle was parked in the last bay and only marginally encroached onto the chevroned area with part of a tyre. It was not causing any obstruction or taking up more than one space.
I appealed to Premier Park with the following message, but this was rejected.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle to which this parking charge notice refers, I dispute and deny any liability for the alleged breach of terms and conditions. The alleged contravention � "not parked wholly within bay" � is, upon examination of your own photographic evidence, clearly an immaterial and trivial deviation. The image provided shows that only a small portion of one tyre marginally exceeded the bay marking. This is plainly insufficient to constitute a substantive breach of contract. Having sought legal advice, it is my firm position that any reasonable court would view this matter as falling under the de minimis principle � a well-established legal doctrine which holds that trivial breaches that cause no real-world harm or inconvenience are not actionable. In this context, the minor and technical nature of the alleged transgression should not be treated as a valid basis for a penalty. Furthermore, the vehicle was parked in the final space of the row, and the minor encroachment was into an unused and non-designated area, not into another bay or space intended for parking. Therefore, it did not obstruct, interfere with, or cause inconvenience to any other users of the car park. As such, the alleged breach did not result in any actual or consequential loss to the landowner or operator. This principle is supported by legal precedent. As confirmed by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a parking charge may only be enforceable if it serves a legitimate commercial interest or reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In this case, neither applies: - No loss occurred; - No other motorist was prevented from parking; - No legitimate interest was infringed; - And enforcement of a penalty for such a trivial, harmless technicality is neither reasonable nor lawful. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any contractual term must also be fair and proportionate. Demanding a penalty of �100 for an alleged encroachment of less than an inch into unused space is grossly disproportionate and amounts to an unenforceable penalty, rather than a reflection of any genuine cost or damage. There will be no admissions as to who was driving the vehicle at the time, and no assumptions can be drawn in that regard. Additionally, your parking charge notice appears to be a vague template, lacking sufficient detail to support your allegation. I require a full explanation of the alleged contravention and demand that you provide: - A close-up photograph of the actual sign that you contend was in place at the location on the date in question; - Clear images of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. Should this appeal not be upheld, I am fully prepared to escalate the matter to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) and, if necessary, to defend the matter robustly in court. I will request full disclosure of all evidence, including but not limited to the contract between the landowner and the operator, signage placement, and maintenance records. I will also seek to recover any and all costs incurred in the event that the claim is found to be without merit. Please be advised that I will vigorously contest this charge through every available legal and regulatory channel. I trust this matter will now be closed.
I have not appealed to POPLA.
Following this, I received a series of letters from a debt collection agency, and eventually, last week, I received a letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors.
I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to deal with this letter before a claim is submitted to court.
Thank you.
Original PCN:
LBC:
