DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: b789
Date: July 25, 2025, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That response is a classic example of intellectual
malnourishment from whoever authored it. I suggest you respond
robustly with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Mishandling of Parking Charge Notice – Formal
Rebuttal and Refund Demand
>
> Dear Zenith,
>
> Thank you for your response, which regrettably fails to
address the substance of the issue raised and instead offers a
series of evasions dressed up as procedural compliance.
>
> Your assertion that the PCN was “paid and recharged in line
with the agreement made with your company” is a non-answer. I
invite you to identify the specific clause in that agreement
which authorises payment of speculative invoices issued by
unregulated private parking firms—particularly where liability
could have been lawfully transferred under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The agreement refers to
penalties and fines, not Parking Charge Notices, which are
neither statutory nor enforceable without a valid contract.
>
> Your failure to follow the statutory mechanism for
transferring liability—despite clear instructions on the Notice
to Keeper—has deprived the hirer of their legal right to appeal.
This is not a minor administrative oversight; it is a
fundamental breach of process that has resulted in financial
loss and procedural injustice.
>
> Moreover, your repeated reference to Premier Park as an
“issuing authority” is both factually and legally indefensible.
Premier Park is a private, unregulated parking firm. It is not
an authority in any statutory sense. Authorities—such as local
councils or the police—issue penalty charge notices under
statutory powers. Premier Park issues parking charge notices,
which are speculative invoices based on alleged breach of
contract. The distinction is not semantic; it is foundational.
>
> Your use of the term “authority” in this context suggests
either:
>
> [indent]• A fundamental misunderstanding of the legal
framework governing parking enforcement, or
> • A deliberate attempt to mislead, by cloaking a private
entity in the language of statutory legitimacy.[/indent]
>
> Either interpretation reflects poorly on your organisation’s
competence and integrity. I suggest you review your internal
communications protocols to ensure that future correspondence
does not perpetuate such legally illiterate terminology.
>
> Your suggestion to “appeal in writing” to Premier Park is
equally disingenuous. POPLA and Premier Park’s own documentation
confirm that payment constitutes admission of liability and
extinguishes any right of appeal. Your advice is therefore not
only misleading but demonstrably futile.
>
> I now require the following:
>
> [indent]• A full refund of any amount charged to my account in
relation to this PCN.
> • A copy of the agreement you rely on to justify payment of
non-statutory charges.
> • Confirmation of your internal process for handling PCNs and
how it aligns with PoFA 2012.
> • Confirmation of your BVRLA membership status, as I am
preparing a formal complaint under their ADR scheme.[/indent]
>
> I reserve the right to escalate this matter via the County
Court should you fail to resolve it within 14 days. Your
procedural failure is not shielded by vague references to
internal agreements, and I will not absorb the cost of your
statutory illiteracy.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 82721--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: icedspurs83
Date: July 25, 2025, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for this. I have responded to them and will
let you know when I hear back!
#Post#: 84737--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: icedspurs83
Date: August 8, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After chasing multiple times - I finally received a response...
--- Quote ---
> Good Morning,
>
> Please accept my apologies for the lateness of the reply to
your email regarding the Parking Notice [XXX]. I hope that I can
go some way to providing an satisfactory response to each of
your points.
>
> 1. Failure to Transfer Liability under PoFA Schedule 4
> As the legislature in PoFa Schedule 4 states, the registered
keeper of the vehicle becomes liable for the parking notice
subject to the parking operator complying with a series of
requirements on issuing the NTK (Notice to keeper). It also
includes details on how the registered keeper may request a
transfer of liability for the notice to another party. The
legislature however was written to address the transfer
specifically for a hire vehicle and does not have clauses that
support a similar option where a vehicle is on long term lease,
especially to a corporate customer, as is the case with this
vehicle. One of the strict requirements is for the keeper to
provide a signed copy of the hire agreement, a document that
contains the admission of the hirer to accept liability for any
parking notices incurred while the vehicle is on hire.
Unfortunately the lease agreement we have with your employer is
unsuitable for this and so we are unable to meet the legal
requirement to request a transfer of liability under schedule 4
of PoFA. Transfer requests such as this are met by the parking
company rejecting the request as not meeting the legal
requirement, and escalating the cost of the notice to the full
value, typically £100. To avoid this situation the agreement
with your employer is for us to make payment of parking notices
when received to take advantage of the discounted amount.
>
> 2 Incorrect Application of Lease Agreement Clause
> It is important to us that our policy agreements are clear and
easily understandable by our customers. As part of making the
policy document clear we had opted to use the colloquialism
'Fines' for Parking Notices as they can be referenced under a
number of different titles, Parking notices, penalty notices,
Byelaw contraventions etc. The term 'Fines' while not
technically accurate as you have stated, is one that the
majority of readers would be able to identify against a parking
notice.
>
> 3 Preclusion of Appeal
> Briefly mentioned above, our agreement with your employer is
for us to make payment for the parking notices we receive as
soon as possible to take advantage of the discount period, this
usually reducing a £100 notice amount to £60. Most of the
parking companies allow appeals to be submitted post payment as
they understand that the NTK may not be sent to the driver of
the vehicle who may wish to appeal the notice. There are however
a few parking companies that will not consider an appeal after
payment has been made. We are working with the BVRLA and are
submitting our experience in the current Government consultation
on private parking to have this option to appeal after payment
be a legal requirement that parking operators have to allow.
Understandably this doesn't help with the notice we have paid
for this vehicle and can appreciate the frustration the outcome
of the parking companies refusal to consider an appeal now. Our
recommendation in these rare situations would be for you to
submit all the appeal information to your employer to consider
if they believe the appeal would have been successful had the
parking company considered it, if reasonable they may consider
not recharging the notice to yourself.
>
> Given the frustration this may have caused you, I will arrange
for us to credit back our administration fee and hope that this
gesture and the above information goes some way to ameliorate
your experience. If, however, this does not please let me know
and I can pass this on to our complaints team.
>
> Kind regards
>
--- End Quote ---
My comments/questions are as follows:
- I am not sure whether they have a point on the Schedule 4
piece. But regardless, there was a seprate paragraph in the
letter under of 'Transfer of Liability' that did not need the
agreement. They haven't addressed why they didn't use that
- I don't really think they've addressed the 'notice v penalty'
point at all
- The preclusion to appeal isn't my issue. They should have
realised this and addressed it with me sooner.
I would very much welcome your views on what they've said, and
would of course appreciate any wording to use in a response.
#Post#: 84749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: b789
Date: August 8, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Zenith’s latest reply is wholly inadequate, factually incorrect
in places, and ultimately self-serving. Here is a formal
rebuttal to their email that you should send in response (either
to the same representative or escalated to their formal
complaints team) and CC: [Fleet Manager Name],
---------------------------------------------------------
– for visibility and also CC yourself:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint – Continued Mishandling and
Misstatements Regarding PCN [REF]
>
> Dear [Name],
>
> Thank you for your delayed response. Regrettably, your email
fails to address the material issues raised and introduces
several inaccuracies that must now be formally challenged. This
is now escalated as a formal complaint.
>
> 1. Misstatement Regarding PoFA Schedule 4 and Lease Vehicles
>
> You claim that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 does not apply to long-term lease vehicles and only to
short-term hire agreements. That is categorically incorrect.
>
> PoFA Sch 4 clearly applies to both hire and lease vehicles, as
the legislation refers to “a vehicle hired to a person under a
hire agreement”, and includes no distinction based on the hire
duration or whether the hirer is a corporate entity. Further,
the standard required for transferring liability is not that the
lease agreement must be ‘suitable’ or contain specific wording.
It simply requires:
>
> [indent]• A copy of the hire/lease agreement; and
> • A statement of liability signed by the hirer (Schedule 4,
paragraph 13(2)).[/indent]
>
> If your lease documentation with the company is unsuitable for
this statutory mechanism, then it is a failing of your
processes—not of the law. Your claim that “parking companies
reject” such transfers is unsubstantiated and immaterial. It is
your legal obligation as Keeper to attempt the transfer under
PoFA, and Premier Park's own NtK expressly invites you to do so.
Instead, you chose to pay the charge and pass on the cost,
thereby extinguishing my legal right to appeal. This is not best
practice; it is systemic failure.
>
> 2. Incorrect Application of Policy Wording
>
> Your continued reference to “fines” and “penalty notices” in
your lease agreement documentation does not cover Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) issued by unregulated private firms. PCNs issued
by Premier Park are not fines in law—they are speculative
invoices based on alleged breach of contract.
>
> Unless the wording of the agreement explicitly extends to
civil contractual charges of this nature, your actions in paying
and recharging the amount are legally questionable. You have
admitted that the terminology is “not technically accurate”.
That is a tacit admission that you are relying on vague or
misleading language to justify automatic deductions from
employees' wages—amounts that are not statutory, not enforceable
without court judgment, and are hotly contested.
>
> 3. Post-Payment Appeal Option – Misleading Advice
>
> Your claim that most operators allow appeals after payment is
unsupported and directly contradicted by Premier Park’s own NtK,
which states:
>
> [indent]“Please note, where payment of the parking charge is
made this will preclude the ability to appeal.”[/indent]
>
> It is misleading to suggest that appeal is still available.
POPLA also confirms this explicitly: payment is deemed
acceptance of liability and removes any right of appeal.
>
> Further, your suggestion that I take the matter up with my
employer is both inappropriate and evasive. You are the
contracting party who paid the charge, failed to exercise your
legal rights under PoFA, and are now attempting to shift
responsibility. My employer was not a party to the appeal
process and cannot retrospectively resolve a situation caused by
your failure.
>
> 4. Goodwill Gesture – Refund of Admin Fee
>
> While the refund of your administrative fee is noted, this
does not resolve the substantive issue: the full charge was paid
and recharged to me when it should never have been paid at all.
>
> 5. Outstanding Requirements
>
> To resolve this matter, I require the following within 14
days:
>
> [indent]• A full refund of the PCN amount recharged to me;
> • A copy of the actual lease agreement you claim precludes
PoFA compliance (if not provided, this will be assumed to be a
false representation);
> • Confirmation of your membership status with the BVRLA;
> • Confirmation that this matter has now been logged as a
formal complaint and is being investigated at the appropriate
level.[/indent]
>
> Please treat this email as a Letter Before Action. If the
refund is not issued within 14 days, I will:
>
> [indent]• Pursue the matter via the small claims track of the
County Court, and
> • Report your organisation to the BVRLA and the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) regarding unlawful processing of my
personal data and unauthorised deductions.[/indent]
>
> This incident reveals a fundamental failure in your internal
processes, a misapplication of law, and repeated attempts to
shift blame. That is unacceptable in any regulated leasing
operation, let alone one dealing with large-scale corporate
clients and employee salary deductions.
>
> I am copying in Fleet and HR colleagues as this matter has
implications for employee rights and salary deductions under the
current car scheme agreement with Zenith. I respectfully request
that this issue be reviewed internally in light of Zenith's
failure to follow statutory process.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your Full Name]
>
> [Employee Number, if relevant]
> [Vehicle Registration Number]
--- End Quote ---
It is advisable—and tactically sound—to copy your employer’s
fleet manager and/or HR department into the correspondence, for
the following reasons:
Zenith claims their actions were “in line with the agreement
made with your company”. If your employer is a party to that
agreement, they may bear some contractual or practical
responsibility for the flawed process that led to your loss of
appeal rights. Your employer should therefore be aware that
their agreement is causing financial and legal detriment to
staff—particularly where it allows automatic deductions for
speculative, non-statutory charges without due process.
Once your employer sees that Zenith’s system is undermining
employees’ legal rights, they may apply pressure for better
handling in future. It also opens the door to a broader review
of the lease agreement, deduction process, and handling of PCNs.
If you escalate to court, copying your employer shows that you
made every attempt to resolve the issue and highlight the flaws
in the process, which supports a claim for reasonable conduct.
#Post#: 84809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: icedspurs83
Date: August 8, 2025, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for this. This hits the nail on the head
completely (again).
I managed to speak with someone from the fleet team at my
employer (who, for what it's worth, noted the incredible detail
of your response!).
The only comment they made is to offer Zenith one final chance
to respond properly and not make this the formal 'letter before
action' - hoping for some goodwill now the employer is in cc.
And then saving the LOA in our back pocket for the next
response, if they don't play ball.
To my mind, I agree with you in that the LBA feels right to do
now... but it's useful to have the fleet team on side so i've
removed that line for now.
Thanks again - will let you know what they come back with.
#Post#: 89927--------------------------------------------------
Re: Premier Park PCN - Not Parked Wholly Within Bay - Capital
Shopping Park, Cardiff
DIR By: icedspurs83
Date: September 14, 2025, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great news update!
Got a reply from Zenith apologising, saying the £50 charge will
be refunded, as will the £10 administration fee, and they will
apply a £10 goodwill credit for the inconvenience.
They've also committed (so they say) to reviewing their
processes for future occasions.
Thank you so much for your help [member=26]b789[/member] - could
not have gotten anywhere close to a resolution without you.
Hugely grateful for the time you spent in helping.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page