Premier Park ANPR PCN BW PAP letter - for Parking and Leaving Markham Retail Park

[Wafubloke 1]

I have received a PCN from Premier Park at the Markham Retail Park from November 2017 for Parking and Leaving Site.

 

I'd gone to Pizza Hut and my son had nipped into JYSK.

I received a letter a week later.

At no point did an attendant speak to me (not sure there was one) and all I got was a letter with a couple of photographs on it.

 

I responded to their first letter explaining what I had done and that their claim was erroneous and without merit.

Got a reply a week ago saying my appeal had been rejected.

Just replied to that saying that if they write to me again (unless notifying me its been rescinded) I will consider it harassment.

 

Quiet prepared to go all the way with this.

I take it I just ignore everything from now on unless its from a lawyer or court?

 

Thanks in advance.

[ericsbrother 3,537]

For future reference come and ask for advice first rather than putting your foot in it by responding to their letter,

you have now made most of the POFA irrelevant

whereas if you had said nothing at the time you would be walking all over them when they started making demands.

 

As it is a different company then you can do something useful,

get photographs of all of the signs at the retail site that are anything to do with parking.

[Wafubloke 1]

I have received a PCN from Premier Park at the Markham Retail Park from November 2017 for Parking and Leaving Site.

 

I'd gone to Pizza Hut (which turns out to be part of another retail park) and my son had nipped into JYSK.

 

I received a PCN letter a week later. At no point did an attendant speak to me (not sure there was one) and all I got was a letter with a couple of photographs on it.

 

I responded to their first letter explaining what I had done and that their claim was erroneous and without merit.

 

Got a reply a week ago saying my appeal had been rejected.

 

Just replied to that saying that if they write to me again (unless notifying me its been rescinded) I will consider it harassment.

 

Quiet prepared to go all the way with this.

 

I take it I just ignore everything from now on unless its from a lawyer or court?

 

 

My bad, this is the back of the original letter.

 

docs1.pdf

[dx100uk 9,455]

opps you shouldn't have done that

you've removed your POFA rights by ID'ing you were the driver...

 

can you complete this please

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

[ericsbrother 3,537]

need to see the letter you got a week later to determine if they have any right to claim from anyone so no need to think about paying up yet.

 

Also no judge will think that leaving the site is provable, what do the employees of the parking co do? follow everyone around and break the DPA and the requirements of registration for the company and individual with the SIA or justy make thigs up.

 

However, anyone reading this post should learn something

- dont be your own worst enemy by writing to these muppets and tell them that you did do anything.

It must be understood, they have no legal way of collecting any evidence so whatever they say on the matter is irrelevent, only YOU can drop yourselves in it so dont.

 

In the OP's case there is no compulsion for all of the occupants to consider the contract so if your son went to a shop and that was the purpose of this visit then that is enough and the driver is acting as the "servant" otherwise no taxi co could even enter the land and as they dont have a bloke on a barrier to quiz people.

Also VCS v Ibbotson says that such a restriction is nonsense and unenforceable

[silverfox1961 4,625]

Hi

My opinion only! This site is in Chesterfield (found after some searching). Markham Retail Park is on one side and Ravenside is the other. One side has JYSK as well as SCS. The other side has HobbyCraft, B&M and many others. The HobbyCraft site is controlled by Euro Car Parks and the JYSK is controlled by Premier.

 

The signs on the approach indicate the turning into Markham retail Park but nothing else. It doesn't say that the site on the other side is NOT part of the same retail park. In fact, there is signage further along the Markham Road and at the 'proper' entrance to Ravenside so how is the average member of the public expected to know.

 

The other thing is the fact that your son did use the store on the site. What were you expected to do? Go with him? Stay in the car? I think it's perfectly reasonable to walk elsewhere to get something to eat.

[Wafubloke 1]

I’m going to copy the letter tomorrow and up load it (after redacting) and fill in the form in the link too.

 

In a way I had to admit to being on the site as ‘my” car is in fact a company car and they wanted to deduct the charge from my wages so I fezzed up.

 

Thanks for your replies so far.

 

 

True, its very confusing and you make valid points.

[dx100uk 9,455]

there no law that says they can do that..

[Wafubloke 1]

1 Date of the infringement 27th November 2017

 

2 Date on the NTK 22nd December 2017

 

3 Date received 24th December 2017

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Can't see it

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yup, attached above

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] Yes

 

"Without prejudice

 

Reference:

Date of issue: 27 Nov 2017

Vehicle registration:

 

 

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the above Parking Charge Notice.

 

On 27 Nov 2017 my vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice for the reason of Parking and leaving site.

 

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I parked my car inside an allocated parking bay and left the car park approximately an hour later. I took my son for a birthday lunch at Pizza Hut and at no point did I leave the site.

 

For this reason I look forward to receiving notification within 28 days that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled.

 

Yours faithfully,"

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] Yes, attached above

 

My response:

 

"Without prejudice

 

Reference:

Date of issue: 27 Nov 2017

Vehicle registration:

 

 

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing in response to your letter dated 22nd January 2018 ref Parking Charge Notice.

 

On 27 Nov 2017 my vehicle was issued with a Parking Charge Notice for the reason of Parking and leaving site.

 

In accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1991, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur. I parked my car inside an allocated parking bay and left the car park approximately an hour later. I took my son for a birthday lunch at Pizza Hut and my son popped into JYSK and at no point did I leave the site.

 

For this reason I look forward to receiving notification within 28 days that the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled. If I receive any future communication aside from a withdrawal letter from either yourselfs or your agents I will be regard it as harassment.

 

 

Yours faithfully,"

 

 

 

7 Who is the parking company? Premier Park

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] : Markham Retail Park, Chesterfield

 

Hope the works.

parking.pdf

[silverfox1961 4,625]

Another vague opinion!

 

The signage on site does not differentiate between driver and passenger. The passenger used the store on site so (IMOP) that would negate the signage.

 

PP also state that Markham Retail Park have no option to intervene in parking matters. If that is the case, who is the landowner? I would imagine that JYSK may be able to inform you of who the landowner is OR PP is lying and stores CAN intervene on behalf of their customers. The original NTK didn't show any information about PoFA 2012. Was there something on the reverse?

 

You have done yourself no favours by naming yourself as the driver but I do understand the reasons behind it as it was a company car. I would ask your bosses to consider passing any NTK over to you and not to reply to any PRIVATE parking company in the future.

 

IF it is the case that the first letter has not mentioned PoFA 2012 then they shouldn't be allowed to rely on it in any subsequent letters.

[ericsbrother 3,537]

OK your response now marks you down as a mug for several reasons.

 

Using the term "without prejudice" in an inappropriate place and quoting the RTA when it doesnt apply are the 2 that will leap out at them.

You also then continued to shot yourself in the other foot by offering a mitigation when all this does is drop you in it deeper.

 

Now you have to read up on contract law as it is used in parking to start to understand why they dont have a claim.

You have been pointed to a couple of good cases that are relevant and also to info on the signage.

 

If the land on the development is contiguous (owend by the same entity) then you havent left it, even if these bandits dont operate in the other car park.

That is one of the reasons they are trying to chisel you out of money but that will also be part of their undoing.

 

You will be complaining to the landlord when this is over an they are usually disinterested in such matters but wont want to lose tenants and tenants need customers but no-one needs parking cowboys so it will make a difference if you word that letter correctly

Edited April 5, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[Wafubloke 1]

Thanks for the reply.

 

I’m confused, which cases have I been pointed to?

 

Something I’ve just thought of.

 

The photographs are taken by a person on site, so shouldn’t that person have tried to stop me from “leaving” the site or at least inform me that I was leaving?

Edited April 5, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[dx100uk 9,455]

well no

they wont then be able to con people out of money if they do.

 

we see p'haps 0.01% of people that get these speculative invoices here

the rest think they are fines and they must pay them or be taken to court.

silly really...

 

oh and redo your scan as a PDF please so we can zoom

read upload

[ericsbrother 3,537]

VCS v Ibbotson is the leading persuasive case for this.

 

What you say about the person with the camers is called "mitigating your losses"

 

so yes, they are obliged to tell you but then if they did how are they going to rip you off?

 

The point about this is that it is rarely raised in an appeal and when it is the parking co's ignore it and just state that you entered a contract as though their word is the final arbiter on the law.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I’m confused, which cases have I been pointed to?

 

Something I’ve just thought of.

 

The photographs are taken by a person on site, so shouldn’t that person have tried to stop me from “leaving” the site or at least inform me that I was leaving?

[Wafubloke 1]

I received this yesterday (great timing the dad after my dad passed away).

 

I take it I just ignore it?

 

in fact what options do I have?

 

Sorry I just don't have the capacity or time right now to spend any time on this.

DRpletter1.pdf

[BazzaS 3,345]

Continue to ignore.

DRP are just another "step in the chain" of trying to scare you into paying / entering into "letter tennis" with them.

For instance, their language is debatable.

 

a) They say "If we don't hear from you, we'll take it to mean you agree you are liable for it". THEY may take it to mean that, but YOU don't have to, and a court likely won't, either! (as they can't impose a new unilateral contract or obligation).

 

b) They quote the Beavis case. They say "The Supreme Court ruled the parking charge was lawful".

This is indeed true, the Supreme Court ruled THAT specific parking charge lawful....... that doesn't mean the Supreme Court ruled ALL parking charges lawful, only those that arise with the same circumstances. If you can show different circumstances, it can be argued that the Beavis ruling then doesn't automatically make THAT parking charge lawful ....

 

I bet some of the regulars here will be able to tell you what letters to expect, and within what timescale.

When they are exposed as a predictable sequence of events threatening "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down", they'll become a lot less scary.

[Wafubloke 1]

Thanks for your reply, appreciate it. I’ll just sit tight and wait for their next letter.

[ericsbrother 3,537]

There is also case law dating back nearly 2 centuries that cover the "we will assume you are laible if you dont respond" type argument and it doesnt support thier claim

[Wafubloke 1]

Another letter to ignore?

 

Final chance to pay, then what?

IMG_2687.pdf

[dx100uk 9,455]

Until/unless you received

A letter of/before claim you ignore everything

[ericsbrother 3,537]

then they will stop writing to you because these clowns are paid to do just that. they cant do anything else as they ahve no interest in the matter.

Yiou have to read more threads to get an understanding so apart from parking thread look at DCA's in Debt

 

 

Another letter to ignore?

 

Final chance to pay, then what?

[Wafubloke 1]

Thanks for the replies.

[Wafubloke 1]

Just received this from Zenist Collections. Same as before just sit tight and ignore?

convert-jpg-to-pdf.net_2018-06-11_18-48-27 R.pdf

Edited June 11, 2018 by DragonFly1967
Redacted document properly

[ericsbrother 3,537]

Yes and yes, they are a dca so ignore and then ignore. Yoou havent read up on dca's have you or you wouldnt need to ask.

[Wafubloke 1]

I have... just wanted to make sure as I screwed up before.