Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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.

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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...