Premier Park Ltd PCN through post

A question about : Premier Park Ltd PCN through post

Hi all,

First off I have read through a lot of the stuff up here and I apologize if I'm repeating something someone else has asked, if so point me to the right thread or search and I'll get the info for there, thanks in advance.

Where i live we have a private car park and some of the spaces are 'B' and some 'C', I am permitted to park in B but most of the time these are full so i sometimes park in C. This has never been a problem until Premier park started operating in the car park.

Short story i carried on parking in C spaces when no B ones were available and now i have a Ј100 fine. I received a sticky PCN on the car, but on the advice of others ignored that waiting for a NTK. However i have now received a PCN through the post, it is labelled PCN not NTK, should i respond with an appeal now or wait for a proper NTK?

Another point (I think its probably irrelevant, but just in case) is that the time on the sticky PCN and the sent one are different by an hour or more.

As I am new i can't seem to attach a picture of the letter, so here is a link to it, apologies if it doesn't work.

I'm assuming i should appeal and state that this PCN is not compliant with POPLA?

Any help greatly appreciated!

Cheers
Alec

Best answers:

• I am not even going to convert that link at the moment as it contains your name - please edit your post immediately.
  The letter received is the NtK - so submit an appeal as the Keeper.
  Their rejection letter will contain in very tiny lettering at the bottom the POPLA verification code - 10 digits Premier Park's start with 666
  Are you renting the property or is it your own?
  What do the terms of the lease state re parking.
  Make a formal complaint to the management company who are on a backhander no doubt for any parking charges collected.
• Hi,
  Thanks for getting back. I have removed the link as it don't know where else to post it without my name appearing, and as you have clarified that it is the NTK that was the main point for putting it up.
  I am renting and the lease i signed said nothing about the parking, though i may have correspondence with the owner saying parking was on a first come first served basis. This was the case before Premier Park started patrolling a month ago. If possible i don't want to get the landlord involved as he has been really good and i don't want to cause trouble, it isn't his fault.
  So I appeal straight to POPLA and make a formal complaint to the management company?
  Is it okay if I post up my appeal and complaint when written on here?
  Many thanks
• You can't appeal to POPLA without making a first appeal to the the parking company - in this case Premier Park.
  I take it you have read the Newbie thread.
  I would contact the landlord or even the your local council housing department . Your rental agreement is with the Landlord - who may not be aware that the management company have assigned a parking company to intimidate his tenant !
  You also took out the rental contract prior to any parking company becoming involved - this is a direct infringement of your rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property. No doubt there were no other restrictions???
  Certainly you can put any letter up here for viewing.
  so
  first step to get this quashed - appeal to Premier Park - as the RK
  Premier Park will either accept the first appeal ( pink pigs fly ) though they might if they read this and know they won't stand a chance at POPLA.
  Add in the letter this will save them Ј27 plus VAT to cancel this now rather then go to POPLA... and that you have a number of alleged loss statements to prove they cannot calculate GPEOL
• Please just read the NEWBIES thread and appeal.
  Quote:
• MAny thanks for the help above, and I apologise for not noticing that this was previously covered in the newbies thread, i must have misunderstood. I have produced a first draft of my appeal letter to Premier park Ltd and have posted it in below. It is predominantly based on the example given in the newbies thread and the points made by others above. Many thanks for your help and any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
  Dear Sirs
  Re: PCN No. ....................
  I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on the following initial grounds:
  a) I am a tenant of the property to which the car park the ticket was issued in and have a permit.
  b) There was too few spaces of the type allocated so a different one was used by the driver of the vehicle, which is reasonable.
  c) The alleged contract between driver and parking company was setup after the tenancy was signed, and so is not relevant and does not affect the right of the tenant to allow drivers to use their allocated parking spaces.
  d) The above further means this is a direct infringement of my right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.
  I also challenge it on the basis of these further issues:
  a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
  b) As keeper and tenant I believe your signs were deliberately placed so as for tenants to not notice them, or realise a new company was operating policies in contrast to the previous enforcers.
  c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land, meaning you do not lose money by anyone parking on it.
  d) I believe the only reason you are being allowed to operate by the land owner is that you are paying them a backhander from the charges you collect, further meaning the sum is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
  e) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
  f) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.
  g) This is not a 'parking ticket' - it is an unsolicited invoice.
  The land owner should be ashamed of the way you treat people that are simply trying to enjoy the properties they are renting or owning. Your firm appears to lack any level of customer service, existing only to claim money from innocent parties.
  The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.
  The purpose of this communication is threefold, firstly it is a formal challenge. In this regard there will be no admissions as to who was driving the vehicle, nor can any assumptions be drawn. Therefore you must either rely on POFA 2012 or cancel the invoice. Alternatively you can meet my terms below and agree to my settlement as you lack any form of case against me or the driver.
  I admonish that you will have incurred basic postage costs, equally I have incurred costs, mostly with regards to researching the laws behind your baseless junk mail, disguised as a parking charge to trick the public into paying. However it is clear that currently neither of our costs exceed Ј10. Therefore I offer you a formal "drop hands offer". Here I remind you of the duty to minimise any loss, so withdraw your claim within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs as described below.
  • My time at Ј65 per hour, this is my charge out rate used by my current employer.
  • Damages for harassment.
  The third point is to hereby give notice that I have withdrawn from this alleged contract with immediate effect, even though the contract was never properly offered and definitely never agreed. This means that the contract has ended and any obligations with it. If you offer POPLA, and I decide to use it, the contract will end immediately on their date of their decision, whatever the outcome and so my notice of cancellation still applies. Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which do not cover your excuse for a parking ticket. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.
  You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.
  By replying to this challenge you are both acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss, this time a genuine one, is that this sum will be likely to exceed Ј100 by a significant margin.
  I would also like to remind you that if you choose to take this to POPLA it will cost you a sum of Ј27 + VAT. Furthermore I also have several alleged loss statements which prove that you are unable to calculate a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
  I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.
  Yours faithfully,
• If your time is Ј65 per hour, then you can't object if theirs is the same or higher. Get real and change that.
• Made the changes and sent it off thanks.
  Haven't heard anything back so I'm assuming its all resolved
  Cheers for the help!
• Just received a notice through the post and they have declined my appeal. So I shall be drafting my POPLA appeal now. I should have it uploaded tonight so if people could give me their feedback that would be awesome.
  Further to this I lost my permit and had to leave my car there over new year. My landlord said the ppc agreed to allow me to park until my new permit arrived. However they just ticketed me anyway. So I'm reviewing that with my landlord as well.
  Cheers for the help and support so far!
• Alec, I beat Premier Parking at POPLA last year, so good luck. Keep a file of all correspondence. Don't let the snotty letters intimidate you, they are just invoices, nothing more.
  Pete
• Well, this will be a killer point in your POPLA appeal
  Quote:
• Please see my first draft below. If there's anything obvious I have missed please shout out. Thanks in advance for looking.
  Dear Sir/Madam,
  RE: POPLA XXXXXXX
  Parking Charge Notice (PCN): XXXXXXXXXX
  Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
  Date of Issue: 03/12/14
  Company in question: Premier Park Ltd (PPL)
  On the above date, I was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit at Oakfield Gardens, Southampton. This was in the car park belonging to the flat development that I currently rent a flat in. There were no signs anywhere near my car and I did not observe any signs on entry to the area, in addition to this my landlord had not been made aware of any changes in site management from the property agents Radian Ltd.
  I must also make the point that nothing in this appeal should be taken to mean that I was the driver of the vehicle. I am the registered keeper and decline to provide driver details, as is my right under POFA 2012.
  The car was only parked as it was assumed to be allowed, the signage was extremely poor and did not demonstrate that separate spaces were allocated to different groups of users. The signs that were present were hidden and had no retro-reflective aspects. The signs were also conspicuous in their design replicating the previous parking companies signs which did not differentiate between parking spaces as long as a permit for the development was displayed.
  I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was a web address to submit the appeal and a verification code.
  I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
  1. Lack of signage
  2. No contract with the site that permits levying charge
  3. Inappropriate parking charge
  4. No breach/trespass
  5. The parking ticket and notice to keeper were not POFA 2012 compliant.
  6. Unreasonable/Unfair terms
  1. Lack of signage
  There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and PPL, the signs were not visible and there was no obvious indication as to a change in parking management strategy. There were no large BPA standard signs around the car park and therefore there was no way an alleged contract or restrictions could be assumed. I would certainly not have agreed to pay this extortionate 'charge' under any circumstances.
  The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness:
  ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.
  There were no signs at all located near the car in question. I request PPL to supply POPLA with photographic evidence of the parking signs compared with those previously fitted, both during the day and at night. These should be around the bay in which the vehicle in question was parked.
  2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
  The PPL parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I doubt that PPL has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 dictate some of the required working wording I therefore require PPL to supply and POPLA to review:
  • A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the development managerial company
  • A copy of the current signed agreement or contract with the landlord/landowner of the property and development managerial company defining the right to manage the parking facilities and levy fines.
  • A contract between I, the tenant, and the landlord passing on the requirements with regard to parking.
  • A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
  • A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
  • Proof that PPL have the right to charge and pursue motorists who have the right to park on the premises.
  3. Inappropriate parking charge
  The demand for a payment of Ј100 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:
  19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
  is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
  must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
  you suffer.
  19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
  agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
  unreasonable.
  I require PPL to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
  Further to this My landlord has paid for use of the car park and so there has been no loss incurred as the space used was paid for.
  4. No breach/trespass
  If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the PPL ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However if PPL do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss.
  I am an occupier of the property and since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
  5. Notices not POFA 2012 compliant
  The notices to keeper and driver were both non compliant with POFA. Firstly no period was specified for which the vehicle was parked. The notices also fail to identify a “creditor” and as such remain an open ended invoice not addressed to anyone in particular.
  This also means that keeper liability does not apply. As such I decline to name the driver, which is my right. PPL have failed to provide driver details and evidence so no charge is applicable.
  Another issue is that the wording on the signs and notices is such as to make the cause for the charge unclear. The wording suggests that the charge is due to a contract invoked upon the driver of the vehicle. But then stipulates that the vehicle must meet certain criteria, meaning the charge must be genuine pre estimate of loss. These cannot both be true and as such invalidate the parking restrictions.
  5. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
  The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
  '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.
  An unlit sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from 'transparent'.
  Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)
  “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."
  Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that:
  "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".
  The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
  I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
  With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform PPL to cancel the PCN.
  Yours faithfully,
  XXXXXXXXXXX
• Thanks for the encouragement as well, it's much appreciated. Seems like so much fuss over nothing, don't know why
  PPC s bother haha
• You have 2 x '#5' appeal points and have not included hoohoo's words in your points about what's wrong with the Notice to Keeper, at least I couldn't see it. Also the template you found looks quite old, as we would not call a point '3. Inappropriate parking charge' we would call it '3. The charge is not based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.
  Search the forum for the word 'analogous' to find better wording for the point #3 (quoting from a POPLA Assessor) about how a lack of permit is not analogous with pay and display...and in any case POPLA is too remote a possibility as only 1% of cases go to POPLA' etc.
  And look, whoops, go through it and weed out mistakes like this one!
  Quote:
• Thanks coupon-mad.
  I have amended the appeal as follows
  Dear Sir/Madam,
  RE: POPLA XXXXXXX
  Parking Charge Notice (PCN): XXXXXXXXXX
  Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
  Date of Issue: 03/12/14
  Company in question: Premier Park Ltd (PPL)
  On the above date I was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit at Oakfield Gardens, Southampton. This was in the car park belonging to the flat development that I currently rent a flat in. There were no signs anywhere near my car nor at the entrance to the area, in addition to this my landlord had not been made aware of any changes in site management from the property agents Radian Ltd.
  I must also make the point that nothing in this appeal should be taken to mean that I was the driver of the vehicle. I am the registered keeper and decline to provide driver details, as is my right under POFA 2012.
  The car was only parked as it was assumed to be allowed, the signage was extremely poor and did not demonstrate that separate spaces were allocated to different groups of users. The signs that were present were hidden and had no retro-reflective aspects. The signs were also conspicuous in their design replicating the previous parking companies signs which did not differentiate between parking spaces as long as a permit for the development was displayed.
  I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was a web address to submit the appeal and a verification code.
  I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
  1. Lack of signage
  2. No contract with the site that permits levying charge
  3. The charge is not based on a genuine pre estimate of loss
  4. No breach/trespass
  5. The parking ticket and notice to keeper were not POFA 2012 compliant.
  6. Unreasonable/Unfair terms
  1. Lack of signage
  There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and PPL, the signs were not visible and there was no obvious indication as to a change in parking management strategy. There were no large BPA standard signs around the car park and therefore there was no way an alleged contract or restrictions could be assumed. I would certainly not have agreed to pay this extortionate 'charge' under any circumstances.
  The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness:
  ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.
  There were no signs at all located near the car in question. I request PPL to supply POPLA with photographic evidence of the parking signs compared with those previously fitted, both during the day and at night. These should be around the bay in which the vehicle in question was parked.
  2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
  The PPL parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I doubt that PPL has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 dictate some of the required working wording I therefore require PPL to supply and POPLA to review:
  • A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the development managerial company
  • A copy of the current signed agreement or contract with the landlord/landowner of the property and development managerial company defining the right to manage the parking facilities and levy fines.
  • A contract between I, the tenant, and the landlord passing on the requirements with regard to parking.
  • A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
  • A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
  • Proof that PPL have the right to charge and pursue motorists who have the right to park on the premises.
  3. The charge is not based on a genuine pre estimate of loss
  PPL cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged 'breach’ of ‘terms and conditions' in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach.
  In any case, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all. Overheads such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that:
  A parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.
  At no point have PPL explained what loss they have accrued nor justified the Ј100 charge.
  In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.
  Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
  [14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed.
  POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:
  Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets, which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. [...]The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.
  The same Assessor has also summed up many decisions thus:
  The aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.
  Therefore PPL have no case to pursue.
  4. No breach/trespass
  If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the PPL ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However if PPL do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss.
  I am an occupier of the property and since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
  5. Notices not POFA 2012 compliant
  The notices to keeper and driver were both non compliant with POFA. Firstly no period was specified for which the vehicle was parked. The notices also fail to identify a “creditor” and as such remain an open ended invoice not addressed to anyone in particular.
  This also means that keeper liability does not apply. As such I decline to name the driver, which is my right. PPL have failed to provide driver details and evidence so no charge is applicable.
  Another issue is that the wording on the signs and notices is such as to make the cause for the charge unclear. The wording suggests that the charge is due to a contract invoked upon the driver of the vehicle. But then stipulates that the vehicle must meet certain criteria, meaning the charge must be genuine pre estimate of loss. These cannot both be true and as such invalidate the parking restrictions.
  Further to this if both the notice to driver and notice to keeper are compared the stated times are approximately an hour apart. This further invalidates the notices meaning the keeper can not be chased for the charges.
  6. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
  The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
  '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.
  An unlit sign of terms placed to high to read, is far from 'transparent'.
  Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e)
  “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation."
  Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that:
  "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".
  The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”
  I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
  With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform PPL to cancel the PCN.
  Yours faithfully,
  XXXXXXXXXXX
  What do people think?
  Thanks once again for your time.
• How did you get on. I have a Southampton based premier park PCN to deal with too