DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30608--------------------------------------------------
Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 21, 2024, 3:46 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.
#Post#: 30617--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 21, 2024, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 30618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 21, 2024, 4:33 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.
#Post#: 30717--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops Private Land
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 22, 2024, 2:46 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.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qFZezQC
#Post#: 30727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 22, 2024, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 30728--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: johnboy1967
Date: July 22, 2024, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 30744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 23, 2024, 1:27 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.
#Post#: 30745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 2:07 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.
#Post#: 30749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: b789
Date: July 23, 2024, 2:32 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.
#Post#: 30751--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mistakenly thought parking was for row of shops
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 23, 2024, 3:02 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:
[indent]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,
[/indent]
I've written this on the fly so folks might suggest amendments.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 7
DIR Next Page