Premier/gladstones ANPR PCN letter of claim - overstay - Planet Ice CP1 MK MK51DL - operator/POPLA appeals rejected

[TamerAM]

Hi there,

 

I find myself in quite a damned situation and I am not sure what to do.

Long story short:

I was with my partner and we had a ice skating booking at Planet Ice. We had paid for 2 hours parking because our Planet Ice booking was for 2 hours. By the time we had to leave the ice rink, after the final whistle, my partner got really dizzy (she has a health condition where she suddenly and randomly feints) and she fell and sprained her ankle really bad. We had to stay there until she recuperated and placed some ice bags on her ankle, after which we drove home.

 

After that incident, I was really shocked and totally forgot about the parking at Planet Ice. I did not want to fraudulently keep my car there without being paid. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) has images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 20.02, and exiting at 22.27, totalling a stay of 2 hours 25 minutes (for which I only paid, because of what is stated above, 2 hours).

It was an urgent need for which I deeply apologised to the operator in a direct appeal and they rejected, saying that they do not care about mitigating circumstances. I am currently in a tough financial position where, because of COVID and my family being affected really bad, I had to quit my job in November and I have just returned back to UK after visiting and being there with them after which I was bed-ridden due to COVID - I had different short timed jobs and currently looking for a full-time job.

Afterwards, I went and appealed to POPLA, submitted a list of everything we experienced then, what the reason was and that I paid for 2 hours after which my partner's condition shocked me and totally forgot. In the end, they rejected my appeal and ordered to pay the fine to the operator...

I am totally lost now, what should I do?

Will they send debt collectors after me?

Will they take me to court if I won't pay this PCN?

 

This is my first time receiving a PCN and I have no legal help, no lawyer and no one to support me with what I should do.

I do not have £100 to pay to them and I am just shocked that they did not even care of the reason, a notable health reason.

It was my first time parking there.

POPLA's decision:

"Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to whole Period Of Parking Not Paid For.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they visited the site while attending Planet ice for a 2 hour booking.

The appellant explains that they were only able to pay by cash as they did not have the mobile app but whilst skating their partner, who has heath conditions became dizzy, fell and sprained their ankle.

The appellant says that after attending to this situation they then drove home and forgot to pay for their parking.

The appellant says they are in financial difficulty due to COVID 19 and this was a genuine mistake.

Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the driver.

 

When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period.

The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which states:

“Please pay for your stay – No need to display receipt in vehicle…

Parking tariffs apply at all times…

How to Pay using Machine.

Follow these step by step instructions…

Up to 2 hours £2.00…

Up to 4 hours £4.00”.

The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100.

 

The operator has also provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 20.02, and exiting at 22.27, totalling a stay of 2 hours 25 minutes. The operator has provided a log showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number paid for a 2 hour duration on the date of the event. As such a PCN has been issued.

 

I will now examine all the information provided to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN.

 

The appellant’s case is that they visited the site while attending Planet ice for a 2 hour booking.

The appellant explains that they were only able to pay by cash as they did not have the mobile app but whilst skating their partner, who has heath conditions became dizzy, fell and sprained their ankle.

The appellant says that after attending to this situation they then drove home and forgot to pay for their parking.

The appellant explains they had a 2 hour booking at Planet Ice but their partner had an accident which resulted in them overstaying the period they had paid for.

 

While I sympathise with the appellants circumstances I will advise, when looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract.

 

Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions.

 

POPLA is able to request that a parking operator cancels a parking charge if we consider that it has not given reasonable consideration to mitigating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances prevented the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions. However, the decision on whether or not to cancel the parking charge remains with the parking operator.

 

On this occasion, we are of the view the mitigating circumstances did not prevent the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions, and they were able to pay for the additional time they spent on the site.

 

When entering onto a privately managed land such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the site, it is the duty of the motorist to ensure they review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park.

 

The operator has provided images of the signage that states,

“Up to 2 hours £2.00, Up to 4 hours £4.00”.

The operator has also provided details from its ANPR camera system that shows the appellant vehicle entering and leaving the site for a total duration of, 2 hours 25 minutes.

 

Because the appellant made a payment for a 2 hour duration a PCN has been issued as the payment they made was insufficient for the full duration they spent on site, as they were required to pay £4.00 for their full duration on the site.

 

While I appreciate it may have been difficult for the appellant to pay for the additional time given the circumstances they have explained I note, it is still their responsibility to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions when parking on private land.

 

The appellant says they are in financial difficulty due to COVID 19 and this was a genuine mistake.

Whilst I empathise with the appellant’s financial situation, once POPLA has issued the decision, our involvement ends.

The appellant may need to contact the operator for assistance regarding payment options.

 

When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the terms and conditions of the contract. POPLA will use the evidence provided by appellant and operator to assess the appeal. POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed, and the motorist parked but did not keep to the parking conditions.

 

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant did not pay for their full duration, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions.

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal."

It's been a week since their decision and I am scared because I do not know what I should do.

If you have a bit of spare time and experience with these situations, could you please help me out?

Edited March 15, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[FTMDave]

Firstly, your position is that you don't owe this money.  Their position is you do.  No legal authority has decided anything either way.  So stop worrying, nothing bad whatsoever can happen to you at the moment.

 

So what if they send debt collectors after you?  Debt collectors have no powers because it's not their debt.  All they can do is send laughable letters.

 

If you're mixing up debt collectors with bailiffs, well the job of bailiffs is to enforce court decisions.  Bailiffs can only become involved if Premier Park send you a formal Letter of Claim, then take you to court, then win the court case, then you defy the court and still don't pay.

 

If anything similar happens to you again, don't appeal.  As you've found out, POPLA is a kangaroo court and you've scored an own goal by outing yourself as the driver.

[TamerAM]

Thank you for your quick response.

 

So what should I do in the meantime?

I was scared because they had specific timings for my stay and pictures of my car, showing my plate and my car.

 

I am really scared, they both refused this and I am afraid something bad might happen if they get me to court.

What would you suggest to do - just ignore it until and IF they send a letter of claim?

Could this be forgiven and nothing bad could happen if I do not pay it, or they might delete it from their system?

Haven't had any calls/emails/letters since POPLA's decision but I am panicking every day.

[FTMDave]

Courts don't like legal action being started without the parties trying to sort things out before, so you would get ample warning of any legal action via the Letter of Claim you mention.

 

So until/unless a Letter of Claim arrives there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

 

Instead of panicking, use your spare time to build up a case against them.  For example, have they got planning permission for their signs?  Get onto the local council and find out.

 

Is this place local to you?  If so it would be a good idea to go back and take pictures of their signage, which could well be deficient.

[TamerAM]

They have submitted for their evidence a full PDF regarding signage and contracts with the land owner. I don't know how to check its validity - Would I be able to forward it to you in any way? It has 7MB which is too big to attach here.

[FTMDave]

I've successfully used this site before to compress PDFs  https://www.ilovepdf.com/compress_pdf

 

[TamerAM]

Thank you, deeply.

 

Please find it attached.

 

Do you believe there is any way the court will reject their claim if they try to get me into court? This is my first legal experience ever...

 

And nope, I am not a local, I live in other town nearby. This was my second time in MK and my first time at that parking place.

PLANET+ICE+Milton+Keynes+GDPR+SIGNAGE_compressed.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

Just relax TamerAM.

there is nothing to worry about.

Those heartless crooks are not interested in anything other than squeezing the last penny out of every motorist who enter their car park.

 

Fortunately Parliament did not intend that motorists should not be able to use mitigating circumstances when appropriate. And yours is appropriate.

 

Parliament has just issued a new Code of Practice in relation to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

Annex F

 

FI  Exceptional circumstances.

 

e) a vehicle that has been driven onto controlled land due to an emergency which could not be avoided due to the exceptional nature of an incident outside of the control of the driver, e.g. illness or vehicle breakdown;

 

This is your get out so sit back, don't worry and ignore everything they send you from now on. And that includes their unregulated debt collectors who take delight in ramping up the amount owing to them no matter that those extra charges are unlawful, or a "rip off" as an MP said recently.

 

As far as the PDF goes, you could always split in in two.

[TamerAM]

Thank you deeply, to both of you. You are literally and definitely both LIFE SAVERS. I hope this will be the reality and nothing bad will happen. Apologies for being so anxious and spamming you with messages, I am just really scared as this is my first ever "legal battle" experience and I apologised deeply to Premier Park and POPLA as well, this was not something I fraudulently did to park for free - even they said I paid for those 2 hours and because my partner's health, well... here we are.

 

I will also attach their submitted evidence to POPLA. If you have a bit of spare time to go through it, please let me know your thoughts. I did my best to edit out all personal information, if you find any personal details, please let me know and I will re-upload a protected file.

 

Premier Park Evidence.pdf

[dx100uk]

it is not a fine.

debt collectors are totally powerless on any debt - no matter what its type.

next time never appeal

 

shame you've dobbed yourself in as the driver and removed your protection under POFA 2012

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

The sign at the entrance only tells you to look at other signs inside the car park to find out what the T&Cs are. As such they are unable to form a contact with you as all they offered is an invitation to treat.

[FTMDave]

I've had a read through their evidence.

 

There are a million pictures of the signage and the ticket machines, but that is not in dispute, you saw the signs and paid £2 at the machines.

 

In the contract it is unclear who should receive the PCN money, it just says that Premier Park should prepare the PCNs.  It then goes on to say that Premier Park are authorised to take legal action to recover any unpaid parking charges on behalf of Planet Ice or Premier Park.  So which is it?

 

In any case these are just legal niceties for the moment.  Relax, don't worry, but come back to us if they send you a Letter Before Claim/Letter Before Action.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just had a quick look at their evidence

 

. Did they provide a map of the area  for the general public parking as well as for staff parking and any other parking areas that was included in the  agreement. In addition did they provide a map or maps of areas that were not included in the agreement.  We need to see that so the Court know where the car was parked. And there needs to be photographs of the car showing where it was parked not just closely cropped photos of the car since those photos do not even prove that the car was parked anywhere near Planet Ice.

 

There are far too many redactions on the contract. There should be no reason to redact them and most other companies do now show all the regulations without redactions. In this agreement point 5.3 is mentioned by number  in the appeals section [7.3]but has been redacted in section 5. We do not know what stipulations the Client wanted in relation to grace periods or mitigating circumstances for instance. And there may be redactions elsewhere that could have led the driver not to have been charged at all.

 

The names of the signatories to the contract have not been named and one of signatories is listed as a manager. This is in contravention to the Companies Act 2006 which stipulated that only authorised Directors are able to sign such a document. In addition both signatures should have been witnessed by two separated people and there names printed below . The contract is worthless and impossible to be considered as capable of forming any kind of contract with motorists. Moreover it appears that the contract may have ben signed by a company allegedly authorised to sign by the land owner yet there is no proof. PoFA is quite clear that a contract has to exist. No contract no breach.

 

The PCN is not compliant with PoFA. Under the new CoP it is quite clear that from the first CoP issued back in 2012 that the period of parking was just that. The period when the motorist's car was parked. And therefore no way can the period of parking which is a requirement of PoFA can be considered as the time of arrival and the departure time . Sometimes it can take several minutes on a busy day to find a place to park. Likewise on leaving at a busy time another five to  ten minutes can easily be spent trying to leave the car park when joining a busy road.

 

The sign at the entrance is not capable of forming a contract since the T&Cs are not included and the motorists are advised that the rules are on signs within the car park. So the sign is an invitation to treat not the formation of a contract.

 

Finally  there is the question of the reason for stopping. Under the new CoP the Government have explained that while some additions may have to be introduced at a later date there are other factors that should be brought into effect now. 

 

Under Annex 1 

F.1 Exempt circumstances

 

e) a vehicle that has been driven onto controlled land due to an emergency which could not be avoided due to the exceptional nature of an incident outside of the control of the driver, e.g. illness or vehicle breakdown;

 

The new Act was brought in to control the rogue parking companies who have one thought in mind which is to rip off motorists at every conceivable angle. The keeper sent in a very well written appeal explaining the events that led up to the delay in leaving. You would have expected that any decent parking company would have taken notice of the plight of the lady and waived the charge especially as they should have been aware of the new CoP and realised that this situation quite obviously fell within the strictures of the Act in terms of the parking period and the unexpected illness. It seems quite clear that this company is one of those rogues targeted by the Government for failing to comply with Parliament's wishes. 

As they should have been aware that their time of ripping off motorists was over that this case should never have reached the Courts.  It is parliaments wish that rogue companies lose their status with the DVLA  which is at the Judge's discretion. Alternatively exemplary damages could be awarded to the Defendant for the distress caused .

 

 

 

 

 

[Ethel Street]

7 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

The names of the signatories to the contract have not been named and one of signatories is listed as a manager. This is in contravention to the Companies Act 2006 which stipulated that only authorised Directors are able to sign such a document. In addition both signatures should have been witnessed by two separated people and there names printed below . The contract is worthless and impossible to be considered as capable of forming any kind of contract with motorists.

 

Most contracts are signed as simple contracts under s43 of the Act "on behalf of the company" and don't need all those formalities, and that seems to be the case with this one. On the face of it the contract appears to meet the legal rules for forming a valid contract between Planet Ice and Premier Parking Ltd (motorists are not a party to it). It's reasonable to assume that the 'Contracts Manager' has authority to sign.

 

Is there a reason why you believe it would need the formal signing procedures of s44 of the Act?

[brassnecked]

What would apply though would be to use the F1 exemption as the emergency arose during the paid for period, so was unforseen. Yes not law yet but good practice.

[lookinforinfo]

Ethel Street thank you for your comments-it is always good to get feedback on my comments.

 

I was going by the now famous case at Lewes Court where OPS were given a bashing by the Judge whose name I have unfortunately forgotten. In that case the Judge expected that the contract between OPS and the landowner required witnesses to the signatories since there was only one director who signed on behalf of their respective companies.

 

As you no doubt know the case was appealed and the District Judge found their was bias in the Judge's decision and quashed the verdict. However there was no mention of the Companies Act 2006 when dealing with the appeal. Of course that could have been that the case had been decided on earlier facts.

 

Moving on to whether the Contracts Manager is authorised to sign on behalf of a company Then I refer you to S44  [2] and [3]of the Act.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

 

In any event the signatories names and company names have been redacted so there is no means of confirming who signed the document which surely raises question s as to whether it has been  validly executed. 

 

On the contrary Brassnecked I take it that parts of the new Act should already be in practice.

 

If you read the preamble to the Act by the Under Secretary for levelling up-Minister Neil O'Brien one of the paragraphs said

"  The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. "

 

I read that to mean that adjustment period started from the publication of the Code. The reason that the Code has been deferred is to give the parking companies time to amend their signs, contracts and PCNs for instance. But those that can be brought in straight away should be.

[Ethel Street]

@lookinforinfo s44 is not really relevant here. It's primarily applicable when a company executes a deed, to contracts made "by" a company in contrast to 'simple' contracts made "on behalf of" a company.  s43 (1) distinguishes between the two.

 

s44 formalities apply only to contracts executed "by a company", not contracts agreed "on behalf of a company". The latter can be signed or agreed by any authorised employee.

 

If challenged on this in court I'm sure the directors of Premier Parking Ltd would confirm that their Contracts Manager is authorised to sign the contract with Palace Ice. His signature says under it that he is signing "on behalf of Premier Parking Ltd", ie s43.  Personally I don't think it's worth OP raising.

 

Our everyday experience tells us that most legally binding contracts we enter into with a company are not executed with s44 procedures. If that were always required most consumer court actions for breach of contract would fail for lack of an enforceable contracts.

 

An online search for company contract signing procedures will bring up legal websites explaining the the difference between "by the company" [s44] and "on behalf of the company" [s43]

[brassnecked]

Thanks for that lookedinforinfo, that is brilliant it means Op can cite and use that Emergency Clause as an absolute defence.  This COP is going to really hit these fleecer's hard.

[TamerAM]

You, guys, are just amazing - unbelievably helpful, kind souls. I appreciate all your help. I am just waiting to see if they will send a Letter in post. Is there a deadline for this, a period in which they are supposed to sue if they want, and if if goes over, unmentioned,, this will be forgotten?

 

I thank you, all, again, from the bottom of my heart.

[lookinforinfo]

Well it was their usual practice [and by "their" I mean all of the parking crooks ] to bombard non paying motorists with PCNs , debt collectors and Final notices. However as the new CoP is coming in next year they may well try to hurry the procedures along this year since they won't be getting rich when the new Act is fully in force.

 

Whatever they decide you are in a strong position to avoid paying them should they try taking you to court. They don't take everyone who doesn't pay to court so it might never happen to you. Just laugh at their puerile attempts to frighten you. And by the way although debt collectors threaten to hang, draw and quarter you, they rarely do.

 

Thank you for the further clarification. I notice that you have not commented on the redaction of their signatures. Given the dishonesty and skulduggery  by some of the parking companies I feel that Premier should be put to strict proof  as to the names of the signatories on the contract. After all a valid contract is an important part in being able to enforce parking laws.

 

Also that if the company is an agent for the actual landowner then there should be strict proof of the  permission from the land owner to the agent. 

[FTMDave]

Any update on this?

 

I ask as we have a new case for the same car park.

 

Have the fleecers done nothing since March?

[TamerAM]

Hey there.

 

Since then, they have raised the “ticket” price up to £240 and have sent me over 10-11 letters from the same headhunter agency saying I shouldn’t ignore and pay it within 7 days.

 

Every letter says 7 days, really scary but I kept all of them and ignored as it seems to me there’s nothing they can do other than put anxiety and fear in people. Screw them.

[FTMDave]

Thanks for replying so quickly.

 

We have a few Premier Park/Planet Ice cases now, and so far the fleecers haven't had the gonads to take anyone to court.

 

Your sentiments are spot on.  Keep ignoring them.  Come back to us though if you ever get a Letter Before Claim.

Edited August 1, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[lookinforinfo]

FTM. perhaps it is not so much a lack of gonads but sense. The majority of motorists pay up before going to Court. And when motorists do end up in Court regardless of whether they win or lose, the parking rogues  still lose as they cannot be reimbursed for the Court fees and legal fees which always come to more than the £100 they can now only claim.

 

So they are riding on the coat tails as it were of other companies that take people to Court. 

 

Quote

The Planet Ice Milton Keynes is owned by AEW UK Ltd. I cannot tell which of its subsidiary companies actually own it but it is not Ice Planet.  So they are required to show that AEW have allowed ICE to act on their behalf.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Charging £24 per letter. Sounds like a good business. If only I could get that much for the emails I write on here never mind all the other emails I send.