Hi, I recently fought Premier Park via POPLA and won all 4 cases. The wording on the packets is illegal and please do persue your trading standards, the more people complain to TS, the more likely they will get off their bums and deal with this clown outfit. Read up on what time limits a PCN company has to send out their begging letters etc, wait until they have sent out the notice to keeper and then contact the company, appeal via them. Lots of info on the time limits you and the PCN company are on this site. I doubt they will take any notice about claims of their wording being illegal, as they don't care, when you appeal. They might back off if you own rather than rent property there. Complain to the BPA about them as well, regarding incorrect usage of wording, attempting to appear as an official authority. Premier park fall flat on their face at POPLA, for not being able to prove genuine pre estimate of loss. Which is going to be your first appeal at POPLA, along with a few others to ensure POPLA cannot wriggle away. POPLA will ALWAYS look for the easiest way to drop an appeal in your favour if there's something in your appeal that may cause them to have to investigate a PCN. SO fire off your claim about illegal use of wording but don't forget to include asking for GPEOL, proof of contract between the landowner and Premier Park. Claim the signage is inadequate, you don't have to prove it is, Premier Park have to prove it is, so they do the leg work. I won one claim as I said the side of the road I parked on had no signs on it, POPLA agreed with me... Use this site, an hour of so reading will give you decent information, enough to easily defeat a PCN company at POPLA. Good luck.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?416371-Premier-Park-Ltd-issuing-PCN-s-in-Bath.-**Won-at-POPLA**

Update. So far I have managed to win 3 of the 4 PCN's issued by Premier Park Ltd. These were issued for two parking incidents at Bath. I was given two tickets per incident, spaced about 6-8 hours apart. One was appealed against and upheld by Premier park. It was the second ticket for parking without a valid visitors pass. Given 6 hours after the first one. The visitors pass was valid, and currently the first ticket issued for that incident is still to be adjudicated upon at POPLA but I know that's going to be upheld as Premier has failed to provide evidence. The next was for a ticket issued for no parking allowed. Again it was a ticket issued for the same offence but 6 hours later. This went to POPLA but Premier Park cancelled the PCN. The one I thought would be an issue has now been adjudicated on. POPLA's decision upheld my appeal but I was dissapointed they went for the easy option, I wanted them to jump on Premier Park about the fact they broke several rules and laws. This was the initial PCN issued for no parking. Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination At 21:27, on January 20 2014, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at Bath Riverside. The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by parking in a no parking area. The Appellant made representations stating his case. I have reviewed all of the points raised by the Appellant and the pertinent point appears to be that there are no parking signs/ restrictions at all on that side of the road where he had parked. The Operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the Appellant that the Appellant would park in accordance with the parking conditions or face liability for a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement. The only relevant method of incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the Appellant must have been made aware of the term, before the agreement was made, in order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The Appellant will be deemed to have been made aware of the term if the Operator had taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the Appellant’s attention. The usual method by which an Operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking. The Operator has submitted pictures of the Appellant’s vehicle parked at a certain spot. The Operator has submitted pictures at the site which indicate the parking conditions, however, it is not clear where the signage is located. In one of the pictures, the Operator appears to point out a sign, however, it is not wholly clear what the terms on it are and the sign does not appear to be illuminated when it is dark. It is difficult to ascertain if the signage at the site was sufficiently clearly brought to the Appellant’s attention. Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear. Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention on the Appellant. I need not decide any other issues. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sakib Chowdhury So it is 3-0 to me so far V Premier park.

New update. Third and fourth notice to keeper now arrived from Premier park, these two for a seperate parking charge, invalid permit. They dropped the fourth one on appeal, they had issued two notices for parking in same spot without moving in under 6 hours. Having seen their photo evidence, I spotted they have included a sign, claiming it is the one I had to have seen. Its says constructor parking only. Unfortunatly for them, also in their photo evidence is a photo of the parking sign, 2 feet in front of my car, which shows no such wording. So I'm not only appealing at POPLA, got the code, but have yet again sent the info to trading standards and complained that BPA and premier park need to be taken to court for criminal proccedings due to fraud. Trading standards going along with that.

Update. Now have two appeals in with POPLA, for the two tickets issued by Premier Park. Gone for the incorrect signage, no loss to owner, no contract in place with the landowner. Also pointed out that PP have broken code 14 of the BPA code of conduct and also broken the law by misrepresenting an authority, due to the wording on their notice to driver and the plastic wallet it came in. Both appeals due to be looked at towards end of April. Am also chasing this via BPA complaints, regarding the code 14 thing, and have contacted my local trading standards. I thought I had read that for every notice to keeper, a private parking charge company had to get the details from DVLA for each ticket issued. Is this true and if so where is that laid down. As if it is, I will query DVLA at the same time I point out to them they are allowing a company that is not following BPA code of practice and breaking actual laws, access to private information. Hoping Trading standards finds that Premier park have broken The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Section 40. If so I will push for Premier Par to be made to pay back every single person they have taken money off, prior to and upto the date my ticket was issued. As money paid for charges would have been done so under illegal conditions.

Update. Notice to keeper has arrived. Postal date and date on letter are franked 25/02/2014. So they are within timeline -.- Appeal will be sent in good time to head off the 14 days I have to respond now. Appeal based on signage not readable until after your parked. PCN and yellow sleeve used to affix PCN's to vehicle are illegal as the infer an authority which a PCN company is not entitled. There by influencing a consumer to part with monies where he/she might not normally. Signage posted on building screens opposite the area of where vehicle was parked, not on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked. Which seems to allude to the area behind the screens is the no parking area. Signage confusing as there are several different ones and they have different parking restrictions or no parking at all. Along with provide proof of costs, legal right to persue someone for charges, if not the actual landowner. The signage terminoligy has been changed since the first incident of parking. I doubt it will get much attention and will be regected out of hand. Hope so as there is a lot of reasonable and legal requests within it (5 sides of A4), that will not look good for them if this goes to court.

Hi BB, are you saying the original ticket or PCN was issued to the driver on the 2nd of Jan or 9th? If not and they have written to you as the registered keeper before the 16th of Jan, they have broken the rules regarding when they can ask for your details already. They have to serve the driver and wait 14 days before contacting DVLA for the registered keepers details. If they have broken that timeline, complain to DVLA and ask them what they are doing releasing your details to that company. Then sit back and wait for the PCN company to whine/beg/threaten. More wiser heads may be more clued up to the direction you should take from that point.

Does this apply? The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 1. Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not. 2. Displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation. 3. Claiming that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body which it does not have. 4. Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader, the commercial Aggressive commercial practices 7. (1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances— (a)it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and (b)it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. (2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of— (a)its timing, location, nature or persistence; (b)the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour; ©the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product; (d)any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and (e)any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken. (3) In this regulation— (a)“coercion” includes the use of physical force; and (b)“undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision. practices or the product have not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation. So the above in regards to Premier park using notice to drivers with the rubbish about removal of notice is an offence? To me thats an attempt to coerce someone to part with cash, where they might not normally. Due to seeming to appear to be some sort of offical document from authoritys. May apply. Also found this: On DfT's Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of unpaid parking charges. 6. What protection does consumer protection legislation provide in relation to parking on private land? Consumer protection legislation provides protections to consumers in a number of ways, including protections from misleading information and unfair contract terms. For example, where signs for motorists in a car park are misleading, or other misleading information is given (for example tickets which look like local authority tickets), or necessary information is not provided, there may be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Local authority trading standards services (TSS) and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can take enforcement action where they consider the regulations have or may have been breached. If any terms provided by the landholder as part of the parking contract are deemed unfair by a court they cannot be relied upon against a consumer. TSS, OFT and consumers themselves can challenge unfair terms through the courts under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. If it is unclear whether parking is offered the motorist should not park there as s/he may be trespassing. Maximum penalties for a criminal conviction under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations are currently: on summary conviction (i.e. in the magistrates’ court) a £5,000 fine; or on conviction on indictment (in the Crown court), to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. 25

Cheers Pete. I read that as being, they cannot send a letter to the RK until 28 days from the original notice to driver was placed on the car and they then have 28 days to then send it. Just as an update, received a further two tickets Again both put on car in under 24 hours, this time I was in a clearly marked visitors parking space, with a valid visitors parking permit. The mind boggles. Photos taken for the dispute if needed. M-M

I have not as yet sent of my appeal. Now I think I will indeed wait until they contact me, as the RK. See if they screw that one up. Is there a defined time period they have to send? Is it 14 days or bust for them?

Hi and thanks for the responses. My appeal is made in response to the two notices that were attatched to the car. I have 4 days left before the 14 day run out and the full amount is due. I have responded as the RK, not as the driver and have not alluded that I was driving in my appeal. I have had nothing sent to me as yet, wondering if I should wait for them to actually contact me before posting the appeal. My main thought is the fact they have broken the law by declaring on the notices it is an offence to remove them, as part of the Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, says paying anyone who breaks that ruling is also commiting an unlawful act. So Premier Park is inviting me to break the law. Well that's my interpretation of it anyway. I am well aware my personal notice to people sticking notices on the car has sod all legal stance about it, but hopefully will make them flinch a bit

I would like some advice concerning two PCN's issued by Premier Park Ltd. I have made an appeal against the issuing of the two PCN's due to my personal feeling that both the landowner and Parking company are being complicit in being unreasonable with parking in the Highgate residency of Bath riverside new build flats. As such the contractual agreement they suggest I am agreeing to, I most certainly don't, sadly there was no one present to hear my objections as I parked My car was parked outside my girlfriends flat on an evening and by late morning when I went back to the car, there were two PCN's attatched. I am a reasonable fella and will pay parking charges where it is reasonable for me to do so. In this case I did indeed ignore all the parking signs as I felt the contractual agreement contained within it, was completely unreasonable and non compliable. There are supposed to be 16 visitor spaces for these flats, with a visible "V" marking in them. In fact there are only 5, of which 3 are signed "contractor parking only", the remaining two slots were filled. The parking signs declare anyone who is not parked within a visitor space with a visitors permit displayed, is in breach of the contract and liable to pay a charge (£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days). 1: Both PCN's attached to my car and the notices within them clearly have a warning that the removal of these notices by anyone unauthorised is an offence. That as I understand it is actually unlawful, as stated in Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, para D. 2: Issue reason on both notices were for parking in a no parking area. I was clearly parked in a parking area. I must have been as contractors, the landowners and estate agents for the properties in the area were all parked along the same area as I in the morning. Non of whom got a ticket or ever will. So as far as I am concerned their reason for issue is false. 3: I have asked for proof of contractual agreement between the landowner and parking service company. 4: I have asked for the company to provide me with evidence of damage/costs caused by my parking there. 5: I have requested the company to provide to me direct, any photographs showing my car illegally parked and who was driving the car. 6: Due to a previous incident with a private parking company, I permanently have a sign within my car, it lives on the drivers instrument panel and on the rear parcel shelf, it reads as follows: Warning: Private property. Any and all individuals or employers of individuals, other than Official council traffic enforcement officers or police, who interfere with this vehicle in any manner without prior permission of the owner, are agreeing to pay a fine of £100, per incident. No negotiations will be entered into, all payments must be paid within 14 calendar days from the date of incident occurring. Placement of flyers, banners, stickers, notices all count as invasion of privacy and interference with my property. A further charge of £50 will be applied for removal by the owner of any objects or marks made upon this vehicle. Vehicle owners details may be obtained via DVLA at your expense. These details should be used to make your payment. Cash or cheques payments only, will be accepted. These charges may be dropped if an apology is made within a timely manner by the offender or company employing said offender. In your considered opinion, what are my chances?