Exposing Premier Parking Solutions' shenanigans

[Fred_Funk]

The difficulty with CPUTR is that Trading Standards are the authority charged with bringing prosecutions under the legislation, and in general they do not seem to be much concerned about the activities of parking companies.

 

I've already experienced Trading Standards indifference.

 

Be that as it may, can't I cite CPUTR if I pursue this to the small claims court?!

[satnewbie]

Just be careful about going to court. They will send a solicitor. If the judge is told that you were ubreasonable in issuing the claim he can order that you have to pay costs.

[Al27]

Why would this claim be unreasonable and why do you think they would send a solicitor as opposed to defending at all?

 

[1] Are the five bullet points listed above grounds for an appeal, for a claim against the clamping company in the small claims court or both?!

 

There is no appeals process. The bullet points are to do with how the existing law has been clarified (see Vine v Waltham Forest and the 2001 Security Act)

 

[2] If you look at the sign next to the ticket machine...

 

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...s/DSC00224.jpg

 

... you will see it doesn't give either the company's name or details [as Al27's post suggests it should]; how significant, or otherwise, in the scheme of things is this?

 

It depends whether you saw the signs or not. If you turn up and only see the ticket machine notice, who is your contract with? The problem of course is persuading a judge,

 

[3] How do I go about ascertaining whether there is any contract with the landowner when neither party is willing to divulge this information [despite the BPA's Code of Conduct stating that the parking firm has an obligation to do so]? For the record, I have no doubt the clampers are operating at the behest of the landowner but I can't help wondering if they may have overlooked some of the 'formalities', ie a written contract.

 

They need to submit this to you and the court if you issue a claim. No contract, no authority to clamp. They may show you first if you write and demand it. I would write to both the clampers and the landowner and request it. If they produce it, good for them. If they can't you will have a case and if they don't reply but produce it later on it will hardly look good on them.

 

[4] The guy who clamped/released my car was unable to show me his SIA badge though he did write down his number - which appears to be valid - but it would be my word against his on this which, I'm guessing, means it doesn't count for much... would you agree?!

 

The SIA Act 2001 states they must show ID. If they deny it in their defence, you can swear an affidavit. The problem is that you are dealing with lowest rung of the judicial system and plenty of judges (a.k.a. ex-solicitors) may be clueless.

 

[5] Also, while Al27 makes no reference to it, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that the receipt should include details of the site at which I was clamped; mine simply says 'SITE: DCH', which might mean something to the clamper but doesn't mean anything to me.

 

Again, check the SIA Act. Can't remember what it says of the top of my head about this requirement.

 

It sounds like your case is going to be based around the way they've acted rather than consent to being clamped. It's a gamble, but for £30 it's worth a shot isn't it? Find out the landowner though!

[Fred_Funk]

This has been on the backburner for a while now but I'm just about to get going with it again so am bringing this thread up to date.

 

This is the letter I sent to PPS:

 

 

And here's the response I received:

 

[Fred_Funk]

My intention now is to send the following Letter Before Action:

 

 

 

I appreciate there's a fair bit of legalese - which ain't essential at this stage - but I want to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, fingers crossed, and mean business.

 

As ever, I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone might have.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Fred_Funk

[pin1onu]

Hi, A couple of points for your consideration:

 

The receipt is in breach of the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 in that the registered office of the company is not given nor is the company number on the receipt. Ditto for the sign.

 

In addition the sign is not compliant with case law - Arthur vs Anker: There is no phone number or any other means of communicating an offer to pay on the sign.

 

A motorist who trespassed by parking his car on private property having seen a warning notice there that a vehicle parked without proper authority would be wheel clamped and released on payment of a fee, was to be taken to have consented to the effect of the notice, provided that the release fee was reasonable, the vehicle was released without delay when the motorist tendered the fee and there were means by which the motorist might communicate his offer of payment.

 

[sailor sam]

I agree with pin1onu.

[Fred_Funk]

Hi, A couple of points for your consideration:

 

The receipt is in breach of the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 in that the registered office of the company is not given nor is the company number on the receipt. Ditto for the sign.

 

In addition the sign is not compliant with case law - Arthur vs Anker: There is no phone number or any other means of communicating an offer to pay on the sign.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

When you say: 'The receipt is in breach of the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 in that the registered office of the company is not given nor is the company number on the receipt. Ditto for the sign', is it this bit of The Companies [Trading Disclosure] Regulations 2008, below, to which you are referring?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/495/regulation/7/made

 

It's only that in 7[1], there is no mention of signs or receipts though I guess the later could constitute 'a business letter'.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[Fred_Funk]

Hi, A couple of points for your consideration:

 

The receipt is in breach of the The Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008 in that the registered office of the company is not given nor is the company number on the receipt. Ditto for the sign.

 

In addition the sign is not compliant with case law - Arthur vs Anker: There is no phone number or any other means of communicating an offer to pay on the sign.

 

 

 

Furthermore, while there was no telephone number on the sign there was one on the ticket which was attached to my car. In the eyes of the law, would this suffice?

[pin1onu]

Furthermore, while there was no telephone number on the sign there was one on the ticket which was attached to my car. In the eyes of the law, would this suffice?

I guess that would satisfy case law but a judge might be pedantic and require it to be on the sign.

 

With regard to the disclosure of the registered name of the company this might be of interest (see section 10:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/business-law/company-and-partnership-law/company-law/company-law-faqs/stationery-website-and-signs#6

[Fred_Funk]

Noticed today Premier Parking Solutions are claiming on their website to have 82 judgments and admissions in their favour.

 

http://www.premierparkingsolutions.com/

 

Of course, I'm as sure as one can be that they won't be able to substantiate this and it's simply scaremongering in the face of a concerted campaign from the local paper. Be that as it may, I'd welcome any ideas on how one might establish, unequivocally, that this is complete and utter nonsense before others are taken in by it.

 

I've spent the past six weeks trying to obtain details of another judgment mentioned on the PPS website [the claimant's name was Freye, the case number was 1QT05153 and the case was heard at Bristol County Court on June 3], in which they claim to have been awarded costs in a case where they were the defendants. My understanding is that this is extremely unlikely - I'd wager it's more scaremongering - and, this being the case, I've attempted to obtain a copy of the judgment but neither PPS or their legal representatives [Kitsons] will play ball and I'm being pushed from pillar to post by Bristol County Court.

 

As ever, any thoughts gratefully received. Thanks.

 

Fred_Funk

[Jamberson]

Have you considered just asking them if you can have the details? You never know.

[Fred_Funk]

Have you considered just asking them if you can have the details? You never know.

 

Yes and, unsurprisingly, they were unwilling to oblige. I also contacted the solicitors who represent them and they were also unable to assist. If all these cases went as PPS claim then what possible reason could they have for not sharing the details? Indeed, if the Freye case went as they claim then why don't they publish the full judgement on their website? After all, it would be in their interests to do so.

 

Of course, you and I know why they won't do that but the uninitiated may take their claims at face vale and that's why I'm determined to do something about it.

[Old Snowy]

The surname quoted is relatively unusual and publicly available records show only one family by that name in Bristol and only 11 nationally. Maybe an approach to the other party would prove fruitful?

[esmerobbo]

They say " PPS have just obtained a number of County Court judgements and admissions" what is an admission? It probably means that is the amount of people who have ignored the original ticket then paid up on the letter from the solicitors!

Strange how they quote PCN numbers and not judgement numbers if they obtained judgements?

 

I wonder if they would post up any Judgements they have against them?