Author Topic: Premier Park PCN - Not Paid (but can prove they did pay) - Exeter Road Car Park, Braunton  (Read 4467 times)

0 Members and 64 Guests are viewing this topic.

Posting for a friend, I'm neither the driver or keeper for this PCN.


The diver diligently parked in a public car park, paid for their parking, displayed the ticket it in their windscreen and left before the paid for time expired. They are therefore somewhat unhappy  to have received a demand for £100 for "Whole Period of Parking Not Paid", and relieved that their habit of always keeping tickets to prove they paid appears to have been vindicated.


I've scanned the letter (both sides) as well as the ticket (on the second scan), covered up things I think are identifying (happy to unredact if I've overdone this).


No appeal has been made yet, this is not a hire car and the driver's diligence extends to keeping their V5C up to date. Pictures of the signage are not available as this was a holiday to a place hundreds of miles away.




Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


What arrangements are there for entry of the VRM ?

Is EX18 on the ticket the start of the VRM that was entered.

Is the VRM on the PCN correct (possible misread).

Quite likely, in terms of reason for issues, there is a mismatch between the entry on the payment machine and the camera picture. Either through user error or machine error.

A keying error should see a reduction to £20 (I am not saying you should avail of that, merely that it is an option).

There are likely other defences to the validity of the charge which others will mention.

As above, we need to know whether the “EX18” on the ticket refers to part of the vehicles VRM. Whether it is or isn’t , doesn’t alter the fact that the driver has a receipt showing that they paid for the duration of the stay.

Once the question has been answered, we can move forward with this. In any case, the driver should not pay a penny to these ex-clamper thugs. The PCN, is as far as I can discern, PoFA compliant so any appeal may as well be as either the keeper or the driver.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

What arrangements are there for entry of the VRM ?

Thanks for replying (and that goes for b789 too). The driver tells me they had 2 tries at typing the whole VRM, but only the first 4 characters were accepted by the machine.

Is EX18 on the ticket the start of the VRM that was entered.

Yes

Is the VRM on the PCN correct (possible misread).

Yes

Quite likely, in terms of reason for issues, there is a mismatch between the entry on the payment machine and the camera picture. Either through user error or machine error.

A keying error should see a reduction to £20 (I am not saying you should avail of that, merely that it is an option).

There are likely other defences to the validity of the charge which others will mention.

Thanks, the driver will hold off on doing anything until a consensus is reached here. A reduction to £20 isn't something they would be happy with, considering they paid in full.

GSV isn't much help with the signage, unfortunately: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1076364,-4.1604457,3a,19.4y,182.52h,87.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbkYFPmMgjXyl4zast4B8aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 09:03:37 pm by Grant Urismo »
Love Love x 1 View List

Any initial appeal should raise the point about the issues entering the VRM.

If this was a recurrent issue, it should be reflected in the VRM logs for that day, although you're unlikely to be able to get hold of those easily (they may produce them at some stage to 'prove' that the correct VRM wasn't entered)

How about sending...

-------------------
I was surprised to receive a Parking Charge Notice from you stating that I owe you money for "Whole Period Of Perking Not Paid for", as the whole of this parking period was paid for and I have retained the ticket issued at the time which proves this.

I attach a scan of the ticket your machine issued which shows that £1.50 was paid at 09:33 on the 14th June. As the vehicle left the car park at 10:56 (as your letter states) but the ticket covered parking until 11:33, no further payment is due.

I note that despite me entering my full registration twice into your machine, the ticket I was issued only shows the first part of my numberplate, which may be why you have not correctly allocated the payment you accepted.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that you have cancelled this Parking Charge Notice.
-------------------

...and then come back here if that doesn't get the job done?

I'm familiar with the Council PCN process from Pepipoo and here, but I don't really know my way around the private parking side - am I right in thinking the 'only one bite of the cherry' rule that prevents councils changing their mind about the reason for a PCN doesn't apply here, and that this might have to go to POPLA instead of the adjudicators, who might not be as persuadable in their interpretation of the rules?

Premier Park are vexatious little pieces of excrement and would not entertain acceptance of any form of appeal. So, no surprises there.

POPLA will simply side with their paymasters and say that the PCN was issued correctly because the VRM is not correct, irrespective of whether the appellant entered it correctly or not.

there was a very recent claim that went to a hearing over the almost exact reason. The judge threw out the claim as it was de minimis. The claimant had received payment, the defendant proved that. The claimant tried to appeal but was refused leave to do so. It may be useful for the appellant to show this to POPLA but would need to handhold the assessor through the reasoning of de minimis.

No legitimate interest (the ParkingEye v Beavis case is fully distinguished)

6.  There is no legitimate interest in pursuing a Defendant who paid in full, and this Claimant knows this full well. Last week in a judgment dated 10th June 2024, His Honour Judge Pema (sitting at the County Court at Bradford) refused Excel Parking Services Ltd's attempt to appeal the decision in Case no K4QZ4Y21 which the Defendant had won in similar circumstances to the extant claim, which involves the same Claimant:

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

which involves the same Claimant
The claimant here is different, is it not?

Yes, the Operator in the above claim was Excel. The wording shown above was from a defence for a similar case to this where Excel issued a claim for the same reasons, minor keying error. Hence "the same Claimant" comment.

My suggestion was that this argument should be made with POPLA at this stage as it shows how ridiculous it is for them to be demanding £100 even though they were paid for the parking anyway. You never know!

At least if it does go as far as a claim, it is an extra arrow to have in the quiver.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Just making sure the OP doesn't blindly cut and paste and suggest the claimant here is the same.

Is the 'this has been paid so there's no loss, so it's de minimis 'angle worth mentioning in the initial response to the PCN, or is it something to bring up at the POPLA stage?

I note that despite me entering my full registration twice into your machine

That's a curiosity and suggests some sort of issue.

I don't know how the machine in question operates of course but what made the user think "something's wrong" and somehow enter it again.

It also gives a small piece of ammunition for the refusal. "Well if you knew it was wrong why didn't you ring up".

Some caution in phrasing may be appropriate.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2024, 11:53:13 pm by slapdash »

Is the 'this has been paid so there's no loss, so it's de minimis 'angle worth mentioning in the initial response to the PCN, or is it something to bring up at the POPLA stage?
You can put whatever you want in the initial appeal, it will almost certainly be rejected. No money in it for them if they accept appeals.

Perhaps best not to reveal all your cards at this stage. Better to use those at POPLA although you must remember that they are not truly independent as their paymasters are the parking companies themselves.

The de minimis argument is unlikely to succeed at POIPKA either but I don't think has been tried and the judgment shown is only ver recent. It does no harm trying. You must make as many points as possible for your POPLA appeal. The operator must rebut every point. The operator failing to fully rebut even a single point is a win for you.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Ok, here's what I plan to get them to send, unless anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't...

--------

I was surprised to receive Parking Charge Notice nnnnnnnnnnn from you stating that I owe you money for "Whole Period Of Perking Not Paid for", as the whole of this parking period was paid for and I have retained the ticket issued at the time which proves this.

I attach a scan of the ticket your machine issued which shows that I paid £1.50 at 09:33 on the 14th June. As the vehicle left the car park at 10:56 (as your letter states) but the ticket you issued covered parking until 11:33, no further payment is due.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that you have cancelled this Parking Charge Notice.

------

They also say I have to include VRN, full name, serviceable address, etc - is this necessary (they already have all this on the notice) or perhaps harmful as it confirms things?

They also say I have to include VRN, full name, serviceable address, etc - is this necessary (they already have all this on the notice) or perhaps harmful as it confirms things?
If it's all information already in their possession* there can be little harm caused in confirming it.

*without you confirming it, they have no way of knowing that the person they wrote to is the person submitting the appeal - for all they know, the addressee could have given the notice to someone else.