Author Topic: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops (Read 987 times)

johnboy1967 · « **on:** July 21, 2024, 09:46:16 pm »

The driver has received a pcn while parked in a private land bay. They believed they wer parking correctly and was displaying their blue badge while taking an even more disabled member of family in to a shop to get their hearing aid. The driver believed parking was for the row of shops but apparently it was only for one shop and they used the one next door. The signage does not specify it is only for one shop and specifically mentions no business. The signage does say you have to be a patron and the driver firmly believed they were abiding to the rules. The parking was at 203 Stratford Road B90 3AH, the driver went in to Scrivvens 205 Stratford Road. I can put pictures up if you can tell me what site to host them or can I post direct. A previous case you advised on was a Tower Hamlets one that you said was invalid as pcn was invalid due to no date on NTK. They have just recently cancelled it after months of dispute. Your help will once again be much appreciated. Thank you.

slapdash · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2024, 10:30:36 pm »

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

DWMB2 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2024, 10:33:39 pm »

Follow the link posted by Slapdash above, and provide as much of the information asked for as you are able to. The guide also advises on how to use Imgur to add images to your posts.

johnboy1967 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2024, 08:46:06 pm »

The driver thought they were parking legally. The front of the shops is pedestrianised and they believed these bays were for shoppers using the facilities. The driver used their blue disabled badge and took the driver's also disabled mother to get her hearing aids, she used Scrivvens in 205 Stratford Road. the last picture shows the shops adjoined. 205 Stratford Road B90 3AH was recently opened as scrivvens and pepi at 203 Stratford Road was also opened on the day in question. There is no mention of any business on the parking notices, the driver also complied by ensuring the disabled blue badge was adequately displayed. Can she appeal this, all help gratefully accepted. I struggled to get these pictures up and hope they are adequate.
https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC

b789 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2024, 12:04:10 am »

Appealing this is not going to make it go away. You are dealing with an entrapment. The PCN simply says unauthorised parking. The sign does not define which premises it refers to. There is ambiguity and the contract is not enforceable.

The only way this is ever going to be resolved is if it goes to court. That is a good thing as only a judge would be a truly independent arbiter.

The issue is if the keeper wants to fight this all the way. The process with an IPC member company is to simply ignore any appeals and try and scare their victim into paying into their scam. They will send debt collector letters in the hope that their victim is low-hanging fruition the gullible tree and will capitulate out of ignorance.

They may even go all the way and issue a county court claim for debt. This is winnable but will require the keeper to follow the advice. It may never get to a claim or even if it did, may not ever get to court.

The main thing to understand is that the keeper will have to have faith that the advice works. Is the keeper willing band able to do so?

johnboy1967 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2024, 12:39:34 am »

I looked at this without any legal knowledge and I was instantly angered that no businesses are mentioned. The driver is elderly, their mother even more elderly and frail and had to attend the adjoining premises for hearing aids. I can assure you the driver will not back down and we will embrace your advice and take it all the way to court if you deem it necessary. I just need advice, I am no legal expert but my reaction was that no specific business is mentioned and thus the driver was a patron of a business and not liable for any offence. We have no worry taking this the distance as I sincerely feel the driver was abused in this instance. Please can you advise, do we ignore, reply with appeal or state they abused their position. Thanks for your help in this.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2024, 07:27:12 am »

Draft something up to show us first, but in my view the keeper, to whom the notice was addressed, should appeal, on the basis that they do not believe any unauthorised parking occurred.

I'd be tempted to draw attention to the fact that they have failed to specify what term they believe the driver to have breached, instead just saying "Unauthorised parking". I'd also be tempted to point out that whilst their notice specifies the location as "Pepe's", the signage on-site simply says "the premises", which, given the car park adjoins a row of connected buildings, is vague and creates the impression that parking is allowed for those visiting any of the businesses that form part of that row.

Any appeal will be rejected, but appealing shows the parking company you know your stuff.

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2024, 08:07:08 am »

This good. First we need to clarify in whose name is the PCN. It will have been sent to the registered keeper. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is PoFA compliant except for a technicality but that is not likely to make any difference at appeal stage.

For now, the keeper and the driver are two separate entities. The driver is always liable but is unknown to the unregulated private parking company (PPC). The keeper is known. The PPC is relying on their following of all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) to be able to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

The known keeper could also be the unknown driver. We and the PPC don't know. As it is not really going to be an issue going forward who, in your opinion is better able to deal with handling this? The keeper or the driver? Are you either of those entities or are you simply assisting one or both of them?

Once it has been decided who is best able to deal with this, we can move on. If the keeper is also the driver, there is nothing we need to do. If the driver is not the keeper but is better able to deal with it, the keeper needs to transfer the liability to the driver.

Once this de ion has been made we will move onto the next step.

Having already noticed that the “contract” is unenforceable, I have also noticed more anomalies. The signs say the creditor is Walton Wilkins (t/a Premier Park Logistics). The NtK states that the creditor is Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. This is another arrow in the quiver that is likely to be useful if it ever goes as far as a court hearing.

What needs to be understood is that if this does go to court (highly unlikely in my opinion because it is likely to be struck out at allocation stage) the risk is that if you were unsuccessful in defending it, the total sum likely would be around a bit less than £200. There is no risk of a CCJ on the credit record as if it was paid within 30 days of judgment, it is simply expunged from the record. That is a worst case scenario and, in my opinion, highly unlikely, but you must be aware of this before taking the fight to these scammers.

b789 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2024, 08:32:51 am »

Walton Wilkins is the only registered director of Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd (PPE) and Premier Parking Logistics Ltd. (PPL)

These are two separately registered companies. The “contract” is with PPL but the invoice is from PPE.

The trading addresses are also incorrect as shown on both the sign (the contract) and the invoice (the NtK/PCN). This would never get to court as they would face a spanking for these breaches of contract law and abuse of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

As PPE have issued the invoice, the appeal, even though it will be rejected should let them know in no uncertain terms that the appellant is on to them and they should save everyone time by cancelling the PCN. It is too late for them to issue a new invoice that could hold the keeper liable and the evidence that they are trading illegally is already on the record.

I am happy to draft up a snarky appeal but others on here prefer a more sedate and serious approach to this stage.

The ultimate aim of my approach is to force them to produce a valid contract which they cannot, either at IAS stage or at claim stage where they would face a strike out after having actually cost them a bit of money to get to that stage.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2024, 09:02:57 am »

Good spot b789 - this contract discrepancy might change my approach at this stage - I'd be tempted to focus solely on this for now:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (PCN Ref: _______) for vehicle registration mark _______, in which you allege that the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to you, Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, as the creditor.

Having inspected the site of the alleged parking event, "Pepes Peri Peri 203 Stratford Road B90 2AH", it is not clear how any contract can have been formed between the driver and Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, as there is no signage at the site bearing the name of Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. The only signage to be found is from Premier Parking Logistics Ltd., an entirely different company registered separately with Companies House. As such, no contract can possibly exist between the driver and you, Premier Parking Enforcement, and therefore, no money is owed.

I look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled.

Yours,

I've written this on the fly so folks might suggest amendments.

slapdash · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2024, 09:37:18 am »

It is also the case that PPL isn't a subsidiary of PPE (or vice versa). It cannot be. The director controls over 75% of the shares.

The use of "premises" rather than a business name or location is very common. (Though has clearly caused confusion).

b789 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2024, 09:41:14 am »

Once we know who is going to be the appellant, it could be worded even more strongly. Assuming the keeper will be responding as it is in their name that the invoice has been issued, I would go with the following:

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline to identify the driver. I deny that I owe any debt and challenge the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] issued on [Date] at [Location], in which you allege that the driver is liable to pay a parking charge to you, Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd, as the creditor.

The signage at the car park clearly states that the creditor is Walton Wilkins trading as Premier Parking Logistics Ltd, not Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. Since Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd has issued the PCN but is not the named creditor on the signage, you do not have the legal standing to enforce this charge.

Therefore, I suggest that the PCN be cancelled immediately. If Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd believes they have the authority to act on behalf of Premier Parking Logistics Ltd, I suggest that they provide evidence of this authority, such as a contract or agency agreement between the two companies.

Additionally, I require evidence of a contract flowing between the landowner and either Premier Parking Logistics Ltd or Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd. Neither company are stakeholders in the land, and without such a contract, there is no basis for either company to issue or enforce a PCN on this property.

I do not wish to engage in a secondary appeal through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), as their reputation as a biased and non-independent body makes it a waste of time for all parties involved. Any offer of such an appeal will be disregarded.

Please take careful note, as this appeal will be used in evidence should this dispute ever reach court. If you refuse to cancel the PCN, there must be no passing or transfer of my details to a third-party debt recovery agent (DRA). Instead, you should issue a claim for the alleged debt in the County Court, where I will vigorously defend myself and you can expect a thorough examination by the judge.

Furthermore, any deviation from this requested path, including involving a third party for debt collection, will be considered harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a breach of GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018. Such actions may result in a Part 20 counterclaim against you for any distress and inconvenience caused by these breaches.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2024, 09:48:42 am »

As an aside to this, alongside the appeal it might be worth sending a Subject Access Request to the DVLA for a record of which companies have accessed registered keeper data from their database, to see if there are similar shenanigans going on with the processing of the keeper's data.

(You'd be wise to attach proof of keeper status [i.e. a copy of your V5C] to said request - the response should arrive within a few weeks, and might take most of that time as last time I sent a SAR to DVLA the response was sent by post)

johnboy1967 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2024, 12:03:41 pm »

Thank you so much for this. The driver is the registered keeper and they are also registered blue badge disabled. I am more than happy to go with whatever advice you give us. I am writing only because the driver is not the sort of person who would be able to fight such abuse. I was so incensed by the way this sign was worded that I told the driver they must fight it. Whatever you all suggest we will take it and send it. I am more than willing to go to court to represent the keeper as I believe many people will have been scammed by this signage. Thank you all for all of this help.

b789 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2024, 12:10:24 pm »

OK. Thank you for the update. I don't think the blue badge issue will come into this, to be honest. Just for information, was the bay parked in marked as a bay for blue badge holders?

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops (Read 987 times)

johnboy1967

Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

slapdash

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

DWMB2

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

johnboy1967

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops Private Land

b789

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

johnboy1967

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

DWMB2

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

b789

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

b789

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

DWMB2

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

slapdash

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

b789

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

DWMB2

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

johnboy1967

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops

b789

Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops