POPLA stage - Britannia Parking PCN

I got a ticket in same car park for entering my registration incorrectly (weather was appalling on the day so not surprising). Looking at the signage you helpfully posted I didn't fail to pay and I did buy a valid ticket, albeit maybe a digit out. I complained to Evans cycles the retailer I was visiting but they were unhelpful. Be interested to know how you get on with your appeal.

Sirak Solomon take a bow! :T

You didn't even query keeper liability because you thought you'd said who was driving in the first appeal.

Can we have the date of decision and the POPLA code now we know you are safe, please (unless you want to wait 21 days to be sure the operator isn't going to complain, which is rare). The POPLA code will really help in all future Britannia cases.

Have you added this to 'POPLA Decisions' at the top of the forum - with POPLA code please?

Firstly, many, many thanks to the guys on this thread - so much time and energy must have gone into this! Apologies for resurrecting a dormant thread, but the outcome of it is relevant to me (I hope!)

I've just received what Britannia call a "Parking Charge Notice" (which sounds suspiciously close to a PCN, but I gather from brief research that it's not the same thing!) and I'm looking for the quickest way to dispense with it, without it potentially arising again up to 6 years down the line!

Without going into any of the background of the reason for the charge, given the POPLA decision reported in this thread, is it sensible for me to appeal - not having identified myself as the driver - principally based on the Notice to Keeper failing to be compliant with section 9 of PoFA 2012, as mentioned in the rationale for the decision? (I'm assuming that Notice to Keeper means the first Parking Charge Notice letter?). The letter I've received from Britannia actually has no information at all about "if, after the period of 28 days... the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;" All the letter says is "if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and the current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them for payment".

Or, by the very fact of appealing am i identifying myself as the driver in effect, and hence putting myself in a weaker position? I'm a bit unclear about this step.

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Ok, so here is my latest edit. I think the Landowner Authority and signage are my most compelling arguments. Re grace period I have taken out the suggestion that it should be double time as that still wouldn't be enough for the 24 min breach. I have hopefully made it compelling that the PoPLA official will understand that it does take longer for a mother. If you combine the 2 overstays, it's a total of 28 mins. So only 8 mins more. Anyway, any final comments before I submit.......

My comments on the operator evidence are as follows:

NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY – they have merely uploaded a copy of a letter (on Britannia own headed paper), which claims to be proof of Landowner authority. The letter has blanked out sections and therefore I cannot see any proof that this letter has genuinely been signed by the Landowner. Leading me to conclude that they have not proven the Landlord authority.

Further, they have not provided the following:
- unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner;
- The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights;

This is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.

Addtionally, in BPA’s CoP under section 7 ‘Written authorisation of the landowner’, paragraph 7.3 it states:

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Not everything mentioned above is present on the ‘letter’ they have presented as evidence, therefore they have failed to meet this requirements as requested.


SIGNAGE – I believe that the information the operator has provided does not prove that the signage is ‘prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces’. The evidence photographs that I provided demonstrate that many of the signs are obscured due to being positioned at a low height. Therefore, when a car is parked in front it is not ‘prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces’. They have not rebutted the issue regarding the height level of their signs.

They have failed to provide strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective.

They have also not rebutted the issue that the main signs at the pay machine are not facing outwards into the car park, therefore are only clearly readable when stood in front, not from a moving car.

They have stated that they do ‘offer a late payment option should an overstay happen, we allow up to 48 hours after the driver has left the car park to call to make a late payment should the driver contact us’, however this is not visible on any of the signage.

Grace Period – Britannia Parking have stated in their comments that their policy is 10 minutes. However they have not responded regarding additional time that they allow for disabled or breastfeeding mothers.

The BPA CoP doesn't actually specify what the minimum initial grace period should be for this, only the minimum grace period after.

Additional time should be considered in this instance as time to settle baby, feed baby, set the pram down, put baby in pram, secure car, walk to payment machine, find payment etc.

The fact that I am covered by the EA2010 means they "should" allow me longer. Some council car parks allow either 1 extra hour for myself, depending on who owns the car park. They have not refuted those ideas that they should take special consideration of the circumstances for persons covered by the EA2010.

They have not responded to my point regarding the BPA CoP section 16 and specifically not provided ‘evidence of their policies for dealing with disabled and breastfeeding mothers and how they comply with section 16' of the BPA CoP.

I paid for 2 hours, so there was no intention to not pay for parking, so this was not 'bilking'.


Discrimination – Their response “Under the Equality Act 2010 there has been no discrimination. Britannia Parking do allow for breast feeding on site however we kindly request users pay for the entire duration of their parking while on site” suggests that they have not given ‘reasonable consideration to mitigating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances prevented the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions’, which I am aware that POPLA is able to request that a parking operator cancels a parking charge if POPLA if they have not done so.

The Equality Act 2010 covers disabled persons, as well as breastfeeding mothers. Section 16 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states that “You and your staff also need to realise that some disabled people may take a long time to get to the payment machine.” Therefore, this adjustment for disabled persons “should” also apply for breastfeeding mothers. They have not rebutted this.


Therefore, taking all the above into account, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed.

Yours faithfully,