Author Topic: Premier Park - Parking charge notice for "Not Parked Wholly Within Bay" - Arena Park Coventry  (Read 1417 times)

0 Members and 391 Guests are viewing this topic.

Can you please confirm that when they sent the notice, Premier Park did not include with it any other documents (such as a copy of your lease agreement)? If they did not, you can appeal as below, as the hirer only, not revealing who was driving:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):

  • A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
  • A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.

As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you do not cancel the charge, you must provide a POPLA code.

Yours


If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

Can you please confirm that when they sent the notice, Premier Park did not include with it any other documents (such as a copy of your lease agreement)? If they did not, you can appeal as below, as the hirer only, not revealing who was driving:

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Notice to Hirer [(PCN number)] for Vehicle Registration Mark [VRM]. I am the hirer of the vehicle. There is no obligation for me to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

To hold me liable for the charge as the hirer of the vehicle, you must meet the conditions specified in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the Act”). I note from your correspondence that you have failed to meet these conditions. These failures include (but are not limited to):

  • A failure to serve a Notice to Hirer containing all the information required by 14(5) of the Act.
  • A failure to include the additional documents mentioned by 13(2) of the Act.

As a result of this, you are unable to recover the specified charge from me, the hirer. As I do not have liability for this charge, I am unable to help you further with this matter. I therefore look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you do not cancel the charge, you must provide a POPLA code.

Yours


If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

Hi,
I only received the PCN and no other documents.

I will be doing the appeal online.

Thank you

As for the BPA fob off, send the following as a formal complaint to Premier Park so that it can be escalated back to the BPA:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Unlawful Issuance of Notice to Keeper (NtK)

Dear Premier Park Complaints Team,

I am submitting this formal complaint regarding a serious procedural irregularity in the issuance of a Notice to Keeper (NtK) by Premier Park Ltd.

I am the Hirer of the vehicle in question. I have received a copy of the NtK from the lease company, which has transferred liability to me as the hirer.

The alleged contravention occurred on 3rd March 2025, and the NtK is also dated 3rd March 2025. The NtK contains timestamped photographs taken by your enforcement attendant on 3rd March 2025.

As you are aware, an operator must first obtain the registered keeper’s details from the DVLA via a KADOE request before issuing an NtK. Given that the DVLA’s response time is not instantaneous and takes at least 24 hours, it is impossible for Premier Park Ltd to have:

1. Recorded the alleged contravention.
2. Submitted a request to the DVLA for the registered keeper’s details.
3. Received a response from the DVLA.
4. Processed and issued the NtK on the same day as the alleged contravention.

This raises serious concerns that Premier Park Ltd has:

• Issued the NtK without obtaining DVLA keeper data in advance, which is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and the DVLA’s KADOE contract.
• Unlawfully retained and reused personal data, which is a breach of GDPR and data protection laws.
• Misrepresented the legitimacy of the NtK issuance process, which could be considered fraudulent misrepresentation under the Fraud Act 2006.

Required Response

To resolve this formal complaint, please provide the following:

1. The exact date and time that Premier Park Ltd requested the keeper’s details from the DVLA.
2. The exact date and time that Premier Park Ltd received the keeper’s details from the DVLA.
3. An explanation as to how an NtK could be issued before this process was completed.

I require a full, substantive response within 14 days. Failure to respond satisfactorily within this timeframe will not prevent escalation, as a formal complaint is already being submitted to the DVLA regarding this matter.

If your response is inadequate or fails to address the fundamental issue, this matter will also be escalated as necessary to the relevant authorities.

As this is a formal complaint under Premier Park Ltd’s complaints procedure, I expect a full response addressing the specific points raised. Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]

I suggest you write to your MP and show them the formal complaint you sent to the BPA and their fob off. Request that he/she wrote to the BPA demanding that they investigate and point out their failure to maintain their responsibility as the ATA to properly regulate their members.

You should also send the following formal complaint to the DVLA:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Premier Park Ltd’s KADOE Request and Non-PoFA Compliant Notice to Keeper

Dear DVLA KADOE Compliance Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding Premier Park Ltd’s use of the KADOE system and an irregularity in the issuance of a Notice to Keeper (NtK). This matter requires urgent investigation due to an impossible processing timeline, which suggests a serious procedural failure in Premier Park Ltd’s handling of DVLA data.

Issue with the KADOE Request and Impossible Timeline

• The alleged contravention took place at 14:40 on 3rd March 2025.
• Premier Park Ltd issued an NtK dated 3rd March 2025, the same day as the contravention.
• The registered keeper (the lease company) received the NtK in the post on 4th March 2025, less than 24 hours after the alleged contravention.
• I received a copy of the NtK from the lease company by email on 5th March 2025 when they transferred liability to me as the hirer.

I request that the DVLA confirm the following:

1. Did Premier Park Ltd submit a KADOE request for the registered keeper’s details on 3rd March 2025?
2. If so, at what date and time was the requested data returned to the operator?

Considering that the registered keeper received the NtK in the post on 4th March, this suggests a processing time of well under 24 hours—a near impossibility under normal DVLA KADOE request procedures. If a request was made, the DVLA must confirm the timeline, as the speed of this process appears highly irregular.

Non-PoFA Compliance of the NtK

As the DVLA will see from the attached copy of the NtK, it fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) because it does not specify a period of parking.

• The NtK only states a single moment in time (14:40 on 3rd March 2025) rather than an observed period of parking.
• Simply stating a single timestamp does not meet the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires a period of parking to be specified.
• The persuasive appellate case law of Brennan v Premier Park Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that failing to provide a period of parking renders an NtK non-compliant with PoFA. Should the DVLA require case law evidence, the judgment in Brennan v Premier Park Solutions can be found here: https://surl.li/wdnqas

Requested Action

I request that the DVLA investigates this matter and provides a full response confirming the results of their findings, specifically:

1. The date and time that Premier Park Ltd submitted a KADOE request for the registered keeper’s details.
2. The date and time that the DVLA provided the registered keeper’s details to Premier Park Ltd.
3. Clarification of how Premier Park Ltd was able to issue an NtK and have it received by the registered keeper in way less than 24 hours of the alleged contravention.

If the DVLA confirms that no request was made on 3rd March 2025, this would indicate that Premier Park Ltd has not followed the proper KADOE process.

I expect a full response confirming the results of your investigation. Please acknowledge receipt of this complaint and provide an estimated timeframe for your response.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Vehicle Registration Number]
[PCN Reference Number]

Attachments: Copy of the NtK issued by Premier Park Ltd
Copy of formal complaint to the BPA
Copy of the BPA response
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Regarding the complaint to premier parking should i add the pcn number on the email as well?

thanks

Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi,

Just a heads up I have submitted the appeal online.

I do have one small concern and i've attached some info that was given by the lease company
https://imgur.com/a/CPVhGdi

What if they end up paying the fine?

I've emailed the lease company and mentioned to them to not pay any fine and i have appealed


What if they end up paying the fine?
Depends what the terms of your lease say, but if they did that would become a dispute between you and your lease company. You'd potentially need to sue them to get the money back.

If there's an ongoing appeal Premier shouldn't be sending them anything additional for now.

You write and tell Octopus Electric Vehicles to stop being such feckwitted eejits and to actually read PoFA paragraph 13. Then explain that as long as they have followed the wording of the legislation, there is no way that they can be held liable for the charge.

To paraphrase paragrap13: If, within 28 days of receiving the Notice to Keeper (NtK) they provide the parking operator copies of a statement to the effect that the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement, then the parking operator CANNOT exercise their right to recover from the Registered Keeper the amount of the charge.

In other words, as long as they do the above, there is no comeback on them and liability is transferred to you, the Hirer, not the driver, as neither the lease company nor the parking operator have any idea who the driver was unless you, the Hirer, blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

If they are unable to figure that out, then they only have themselves to blame for their own stupidity and you can chargeback anything they try to take from you for their own mistakes.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 View List

The lease company did reply back to me and confirmed they will not be paying the fine