Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 5th Feb 16, 3:25 PM
    • 42Posts
    • 30Thanks
    YJ68
    POPLA stage - Britannia Parking PCN
    • #1
    • 5th Feb 16, 3:25 PM
    POPLA stage - Britannia Parking PCN 5th Feb 16 at 3:25 PM
    Hi guys,

    I would really appreciate some guidance before I put a draft letter together to POPLA.

    Background information:

    I disputed a Parking Charge Notice with Britannia Parking, which they rejected. They have provided a POPLA code.

    I mistakenly included phrases in my correspondence with them that I was the driver (I know, I know…. ☹ )

    What I would like to know is how I should proceed with my appeal now? If they know I am the driver is it too late to quote any of the rules in POFA 2012 schedule 4?

    Below is some more background info, which may highlight some possible disputes on the timing of their letters. Not sure if I can quote any of these in my appeal.

    I understand I have until 15th February to send my appeal to POPLA (28 days from date of their rejection letter, 18/1/16).

    I thank you in advance for any guidance and advice.


    14/11/15 – Alleged contravention date.
    Place: Chelmsford Army & Navy car park (ANPR)

    Sequence of events:

    23/12/15
    First correspondence regarding above received from Britannia Parking. Correspondence received headed “Parking Charge Notice - Final Reminder”, dated 18/12/15. Amount £85. No other details informing me what the contravention was etc.

    29/12/15
    Posted a response to Britannia Parking pointing out I have not had any previous correspondence from them. Unfortunately, I mentioned in the letter ‘I had purchased a ticket’ from the pay and display machine so this has now told them that I was the driver.
    Query: Now that I have admitted to being the driver, how should I appeal to POPLA? (Britannia rejected my appeal).

    I asked for photographic evidence to prove that I did not purchase and display a valid ticket.

    Note: My letter was headed “Without Prejudice”

    20/1/16
    Received a response from Britannia (letter dated 18/1/16). They say they have considered my appeal and my vehicle was parked “in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park”.

    They say they checked their machines and my ticket expired at 21:40 and that my vehicle was recorded leaving the car park at 22:02 which is an overstay of 22 minutes.
    Query: Can I ask them for evidence of ticket expiry time?
    Can I also ask for what their grace time for exiting the car park is? I know the minimum is 10 minutes (according to BPA’s Code of Practice).


    They then offer to reduce the payment to £25 if paid within 14 days of the date of their letter.

    They also attached a copy of the original Parking Charge Notice (which I did not receive prior to the final notice).

    They then give me my options and a POPLA code if I want to appeal within 28 days from the date of their letter.

    Notes about the original Parking Charge Notice

    Dated 3rd December (which I understand they should have issued by 29th November, in order to comply with POFA 2012 schedule 4).

    Parking Charge of £85 to be paid within 28 days of issue of this notice, or £50 if paid within 14 days. After 29 days, full amount is due.
    Query: Should they not have waited 28 days before issuing a final reminder on 18th December?

    Alleged contravention: failed to make a valid payment.
    Entry details 19:29:52 14/11/15 Exit details: 22:02:25 14/11/15

    The notice informs me that the car park is private land operated by Britannia Parking (the creditor). Query: Should they tell me who the land is owned by and if they have their permission from the land owner to issue car parking charges? Can I ask for this information? Or is there a site I can go to in order to check this myself?

    21/1/16
    I wrote back to Britannia in response to their rejection letter (again headed Without Prejudice)

    One of the things I disputed is their photographic evidence (as I have no way of knowing if their clock was legally calibrated).

    Unfortunately, this letter also mentions that I was the driver

    2/2/16
    Received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd dated 28/1/16 demanding £160 for an unpaid parking charge.

    They refer me to the back of their letter for more information regarding liability for this charge – where they refer to POFA 2012 schedule 4.

    They said if I don’t pay by 11/2/16 then they will recommend to the creditor that court action should be taken to recover what I owe.
    Query: As appeal was rejected by Britannia, should they not have allowed at least 35 days from date of rejection (18/1/16) before they pursued collection? Debt Recovery Plus’ letter is dated 28/1/16
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Mar 16, 11:13 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,268 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm not sure whether the bit you are quoting continues after paragraph 47 to the next sentence that starts with "The classic and simple case is..."
    Yes it does continue like that in the Court of Appeal decision.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 2nd Mar 16, 2:19 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Okay, thanks.

    So, how does the revised letter read now? Is it a strong enough rebuttal to submit to POPLA?
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 3rd Mar 16, 12:43 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Is this revised rebuttal letter to POPLA okay to submit?
    I have taken on board all the comments and suggestions and formulated a revised rebuttal letter to POPLA. Would appreciate any final comments before I submit.

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: XXXXX
    REBUTTAL RESPONSE

    I have been through Britannia’s Parking Evidence Pack and would respond as follows:

    British Parking Association (BPA) – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): Unclear Signs

    • In paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP it states:

    “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”

    Britannia Parking have provided photographs of around 15 signs as evidence of their signs throughout the car park. Yet, only one sign throughout the car park notes the terms & conditions of the car park, including the parking charges – i.e. what actions will incur a parking charge notice and how much will be charged if one breaks those conditions. You will note that even on this ONE sign, the £85 charge is not clearly prominent. It can easily be missed especially in the dark, which was the case on this occasion as it was evening in winter when it is dark at 7:30pm. None of the other signs display these terms and conditions and no mention is made of an £85 charge. This clearly breaches paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP shown above. A driver can, very likely, drive in and only pass a sign with no mention of that sum. Therefore, no contract can exist giving any knowledge to the driver about paying £85. No adequate notice is contrary to the POFA 2012 schedule 4 (which says the parking charge itself, not just vague terms, must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver) and it is contrary to basic contract law.

    I would also point out that the company registration number on Britannia's signs (08182290) is not their registration number. This registration number is for a company called Tirant Transport Ltd. This clearly breaches correct signage rules.

    No Breach of Contract

    Britannia state that:

    ‘the sign clearly states an £85 Parking Charge Notice will be issued if you fail to make the correct payment....”

    and they also state that:

    ‘there is adequate signage in the car park to bring to your attention the parking contract that is on offer at this car park.... Therefore the parking contract has been correctly offered’

    As explained under the heading “Unclear Signs” above, the signs in this car park do not comply with paragraph 18.3 of the CoP. The signs do not contain the specific parking terms throughout the site. Only one sign makes mention of the terms and the £85 charge. Further, the charge on that one sign is not prominently displayed.

    Brtiannia state that:

    ‘In regards to the principle of contra proferentem, in this situation the word “stay” is not ambiguous as the ending of the stay is brought to the driver’s attention on the ticket that was purchased. There was no doubting that the time the driver was able to stay in the car park for was until 21:40 as printed on the ticket’.

    I submit that the term stay IS ambiguous, as there is a sign stating that 30 minutes is allowed for free. Therefore, if the ticket expired at 21:40 then a motorist can reasonably assume that they are allowed an extra 30 minutes on top of the 2 hours paid for, and that the 10 minutes grace to leave the car park would start after the 2 and a half hours have lapsed, in which case a parking charge notice should not have been issued until after 22:20, not at 22:02.

    No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) and Beavis v Parking Eye not relevant in this case

    Britannia maintain that a genuine pre-estimate of loss can be applied here. However, as requested in my POPLA appeal letter, they have failed to produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this ‘loss’ has been calculated.

    Although Britannia have concluded that ‘the Beavis v Parking Eye case is the most appropriate case to use in this instance’, they have overlooked all the points that make this case significantly different from Beavis v Parking Eye, and thus not relevant in this case.

    One of the points in favour of the Beavis v Parking Eye case was about prominent, clear signs throughout the car park with the £85 charge shown in large lettering. As pointed out previously, out of the 15 or so signs, that Britannia themselves have submitted in their evidence pack, only one sign shows the £85 charge and is NOT shown in large lettering. Therefore, Beavis v Parking Eye cannot be applied to this case.

    Britannia state:

    “It is noteworthy that the Beavis V Parkin eye (sic) case was for a parking charge notice of the same amount, and was in fact in the same town, Chelmsford, Essex. The sites are approximately 1 mile and 5 minutes away from one another”

    This statement is not noteworthy at all, but smacks of a desperate attempt to align a completely different car park arrangement – a standard contract – with the non-comparable ‘complex’ contract and interests discussed in the Beavis case.

    In Beavis v Parking Eye the car park was free with a limited time. In this case the time is not limited and paid for.

    In Beavis v Parking Eye the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking spaces. The contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between Parking Eye and the motorist. In this case, there IS an economic transaction between the Operator and the motorist and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment of the tariff was made.


    Britannia Parking seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (Britannia Parking and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

    There the similarities end. The Beavis case has no application here, except in favour of my case as appellant.

    That decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

    The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals, and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a tangible sum.

    This is clearly a 'standard' monetary dispute over an alleged unpaid tariff.

    In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

    By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to Britannia Parking.

    As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty.

    But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 85. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £85 because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to standard contracts.

    In Beavis, the difference was there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests and the value of the free licence to park at that location made it a far more complex contract than this one. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

    The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case. The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

    This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case. In fact, the Supreme Court considered that Lord Dunedin's four tests to identify an unenforceable penalty were still a "useful tool" in deciding whether a simple damages clause in a standard contract was 'unconscionable' or 'extravagant'.

    The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by Britannia Parking merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

    At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

    In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

    The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

    Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest Britannia Parking has in enforcing their £85 charge instead of the 'outstanding tariff' is Britannia Parking's profit alone.

    This position is reinforced in the earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

    "44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

    45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

    47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

    The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6Bing. 141 at 148:

    “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

    The Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed and is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers. It is applicable to this case.

    The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

    'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As Britannia Parking have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a pound or two parking tariff to £85, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.

    British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice: Grace Periods

    • Britannia state they allow a 10 minute grace period once the contract period has ended. They claim that the vehicle left the car park 22 minutes after the ticket had expired, but they have not included the 30 minute free period that this car park allows, so the 10 minute grace period should have been applied after 2 and a half hours to take account of the 30 minutes that is allowed for free. Therefore, the terms & conditions of the car park have not been breached.

    • Britannia state that ‘it is without dispute that the vehicle left the car park at 22:02'. However, they have not provided any evidence that proves the clocks on their ANPR system and pay machines are calibrated and synchronised correctly (as requested in my POPLA appeal letter under heading ‘The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate’).

    British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): referred to debt collectors during the POPLA window

    • Britannia state that their breaching the rules of BPA’s CoP is no reason for a PCN charge to be cancelled. So in effect they are saying “you breached the terms & conditions of this car park (in their view) so we will charge you for that, but it’s okay for us to breach the rules of the Code of Practice and not be held accountable for it”

    The fact is they did breach the CoP – In Britannia’s Statement letter dated 24th February 2016, they say that the PCN was sent to debt recovery on 2nd January 2016. Britannia’s rejection letter to my appeal with them is dated 18th January. If they had followed the CoP then they should have immediately contacted Debt Recovery Plus and put a stop to the recovery process. It is obvious that this did not happen as the first letter I received from Debt Recovery Plus is dated 28th January 2016 – 10 days after the date of their rejection letter. This clearly breaches the minimum period of 35 days that the CoP says must be allowed from the date that a challenge is rejected.

    The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate

    Britannia have stated that the ANPR cameras are monitored daily and that on the day in question the cameras were working at optimum level. However, they have not addressed my comments that the ANPR clock has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock. Further, they have failed to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

    Britannia have not explained how their system differs from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in the case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from Parking Eye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    There are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the Pay & Display ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that is the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). The signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well.

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

    Yours faithfully,
    Last edited by YJ68; 03-03-2016 at 12:46 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Mar 16, 10:07 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,268 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Make sure the crossed-out lines are properly deleted of course!

    Just one other thought as I read it, I would move these 2 paragraphs up and out of the ANPR part and put them in the first section about the signage where it fits better. Add it wherever you think reads best:

    There are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the Pay & Display ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that is the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). The signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 4th Mar 16, 1:31 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Lol, yes of course Coupon-mad - I only left the crossed out bits for others to see on here what I was amending. I will move the 2 paragraphs up and out of the ANPR part and put them in the first section about the signage as you suggest.
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 4th Mar 16, 1:39 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Britannia - authority to issue PCNs on behalf of landowner?
    I’m slowly putting together all the points I want to rebut – thank you to all who have contributed so far.

    I wonder if someone can offer any comments on the matter of authorisation of Britannia to issue parking charge notices at this car park.

    In Britannia’s evidence they state “A copy of the contract with the land owner has been enclosed to show that we have a contractual agreement to manage the parking facilities….”

    Here is a copy of what Britannia sent:

    i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s466/YJ68/Page%207_zpstv55yx26.jpg

    I question whether this is a ‘copy of the contract’. It is just a letter with a statement on it, which they claim has been signed by the landowner – The letter is on Britannia’s letterhead. How can I be sure that the person who signed the statement on this letter is really someone from the Landowner company?

    I’ve been doing some further research on this and have read some other threads on here about it and I question whether the letter Britannia have provided is sufficient. I would be grateful for any thoughts on this.

    Further, 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.

    Can I dispute this letter as not sufficient evidence of authority to issue PCNs on behalf of the landowner?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Mar 16, 1:43 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,268 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you can dispute it. POPLA may not listen but you should rebut anything you do not accept as evidence. You can do that using the words you've already typed/copied above, you've said what your objection is to that letter succinctly. So add somthing like that to the comments PDF.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 4th Mar 16, 2:09 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    That's great Coupon-mad. Thanks for getting back so quickly. I will work on this tonight after work.
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 4th Mar 16, 10:03 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Final draft rebuttal letter to POPLA
    Okay all, I have now completed (I think!) my final draft of the rebuttal letter to POPLA.

    I have now added an extra heading 'Authorisation to act on behalf of landowners' and added this to the end of the letter.

    Here is the final draft which I will submit at the weekend, unless anyone has any further comments:

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: XXXXX
    REBUTTAL RESPONSE

    I have been through Britannia’s Parking Evidence Pack and would respond as follows:

    British Parking Association (BPA) – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): Unclear Signs

    • In paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP it states:

    “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.....”

    Britannia Parking have provided photographs of around 15 signs as evidence of their signs throughout the car park. Yet, only one sign throughout the car park notes the terms & conditions of the car park, including the parking charges – i.e. what actions will incur a parking charge notice and how much will be charged if one breaks those conditions. You will note that even on this ONE sign, the £85 charge is not clearly prominent. It can easily be missed especially in the dark, which was the case on this occasion as it was evening in winter when it is dark at 7:30pm. None of the other signs display these terms and conditions and no mention is made of an £85 charge. This clearly breaches paragraph 18.3 of the BPA’s CoP shown above. A driver can, very likely, drive in and only pass a sign with no mention of that sum. Therefore, no contract can exist giving any knowledge to the driver about paying £85. No adequate notice is contrary to the POFA 2012 schedule 4 (which says the parking charge itself, not just vague terms, must be adequately brought to the attention of the driver) and it is contrary to basic contract law.

    • In paragraph 21.1 of the BPA’s CoP it states:

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for

    There are no signs which tell a driver how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used, which is a breach of the ICO registration of any AOS member and a breach of the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 21.1 as shown above, nor is it therefore ‘easy to understand’ as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. As such, drivers are unaware that the timing is being started before they park and after they leave the parking space which is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and a misleading business practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    A driver would expect the contract to start when purchasing the Pay & Display ticket and expect that 30 minutes would be the 'grace period' because that is the only free time mentioned on signage (2 x 10 minutes is not mentioned, so Britannia cannot now try to redefine the grace period retrospectively with unknown times). The signage in all respects is woefully inadequate in informing a driver about the £85 on 'prominent' plentiful signs and fails the ANPR ICO 'data use' information requirement as well.

    I would also point out that the company registration number on Britannia's signs (08182290) is not their registration number. This registration number is for a company called Tirant Transport Ltd. This clearly breaches correct signage rules.

    No Breach of Contract

    Britannia state that:

    "the sign clearly states an £85 Parking Charge Notice will be issued if you fail to make the correct payment....”

    and they also state that:

    "there is adequate signage in the car park to bring to your attention the parking contract that is on offer at this car park.... Therefore the parking contract has been correctly offered"

    As explained under the heading “Unclear Signs” above, the signs in this car park do not comply with paragraph 18.3 of the CoP. The signs do not contain the specific parking terms throughout the site. Only one sign makes mention of the terms and the £85 charge. Further, the charge on that one sign is not prominently displayed.

    Brtiannia state that:

    "In regards to the principle of contra proferentem, in this situation the word “stay” is not ambiguous as the ending of the stay is brought to the driver’s attention on the ticket that was purchased. There was no doubting that the time the driver was able to stay in the car park for was until 21:40 as printed on the ticket".

    I submit that the term stay IS ambiguous, as there is a sign stating that 30 minutes is allowed for free. Therefore, if the ticket expired at 21:40 then a motorist can reasonably assume that they are allowed an extra 30 minutes on top of the 2 hours paid for, and that the 10 minutes grace to leave the car park would start after the 2 and a half hours have lapsed, in which case a parking charge notice should not have been issued until after 22:20, not at 22:02.

    No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL) and Beavis v Parking Eye not relevant in this case

    Although Britannia have concluded that "...the Beavis v Parking Eye case is the most appropriate case to use in this instance", they have overlooked all the points that make this case significantly different from Beavis v Parking Eye, and thus not relevant in this case.

    One of the points in favour of the Beavis v Parking Eye case was about prominent, clear signs throughout the car park with the £85 charge shown in large lettering. As pointed out previously, out of the 15 or so signs, that Britannia themselves have submitted in their evidence pack, only one sign shows the £85 charge and is NOT shown in large lettering. Therefore, Beavis v Parking Eye cannot be applied to this case.

    Britannia state:

    “It is noteworthy that the Beavis V Parkin eye (sic) case was for a parking charge notice of the same amount, and was in fact in the same town, Chelmsford, Essex. The sites are approximately 1 mile and 5 minutes away from one another”

    This statement is not noteworthy at all, but smacks of a desperate attempt to align a completely different car park arrangement – a standard contract – with the non-comparable ‘complex’ contract and interests discussed in the Beavis case.

    Britannia Parking seem to be under the misapprehension that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. Yet there is no comparison between this case and that one; the only similarity is both operators (Britannia Parking and ParkingEye) described the sum as a 'parking charge'.

    There the similarities end. The Beavis case has no application here, except in favour of my case as appellant.

    That decision related to those specific facts and unusual 'free parking licence' & 'complex' contractual arrangement flowing from specific landowner interests and reliant upon that 'prominent and clear' Riverside Retail Park signage only. The Supreme Court Judges tweeted on the day of the decision, to clarify that decision turned on those facts, that free car park in that case only.

    The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet and it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals, and certainly not those which are regarding a Pay and Display site where the alleged loss (tariff) begins as a tangible sum.

    This is clearly a 'standard' monetary dispute over an alleged unpaid tariff.

    In a standard economic dispute over a financial transaction between a consumer and a trader, like this one, the loss is easily calculable.

    By stark contrast, the contract offered to Mr Beavis in the Chelmsford car park in the Beavis case was described by the Judges as a 'complex' contract which Moore-Bick LJ at the Court of Appeal remarked was 'entirely different' from this sort of financial contract flowing from alleged non-payment of a quantifiable sum to Britannia Parking.

    As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty.

    But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis because this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all, so the same leap cannot be made to disengage the penalty rule by arguing 'legitimate interest'. If that was the case, then every alleged underpayment of a quantifiable sum between any trader and consumer could be escalated x 85. If you underpay your paper bill by £1 - the amount due remains at £1, same as in this case - it cannot escalate to £85 because the Beavis case rationale does not apply to standard contracts.

    In Beavis, the difference was there was no small sum owed and so, to reach their decision, the Judges had to consider other interests and the value of the free licence to park at that location made it a far more complex contract than this one. None of the reasons that gave Parking Eye a legitimate interest which disengaged the 'penalty rule' in their case against Mr Beavis are present in this material case, in which the penalty rule remains firmly engaged and where there is a quantified tariff in play.

    The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment from the same case. The Judges set apart the Beavis contract from this type of 'simple financial contract'. This is one the Judges had seen many times before, where there is a quantified small sum at stake in the first instance as a result of a primary obligation.

    This sort of contract was not under discussion in the Beavis case. In fact, the Supreme Court considered that Lord Dunedin's four tests to identify an unenforceable penalty were still a "useful tool" in deciding whether a simple damages clause in a standard contract was 'unconscionable' or 'extravagant'.

    The penalty rule is clearly engaged in this case of a standard contract with a quantified tariff, but unlike in Parking Eye v Beavis it is not disengaged by Britannia Parking merely pointing to the Beavis case as if it has blanket relevance (otherwise your local paper shop could point to the Beavis case regarding that £1 underpaid paper bill, as could any trader over any small sum owed). Clearly the 'tweet' from the Supreme Court on the day that their decision was handed down, made it clear that was not the intention of the judgment which turned on its own facts regarding a complex set of circumstances, relevant to a complex contract of its kind only.

    At the Court of Appeal stage, when addressing the issue of pre-estimate of loss versus commercial justification, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with HHJ Moloney QC’s findings, and opined at paragraph 27 that: “The application in a case of this kind of a rule based on a simple comparison between the amount of the payment and the direct loss [...] is inappropriate.”

    In agreement with Moore-Bick LJ, and distinguishing the contract formed between ParkingEye and the motorist from a commercial contract, Sir Timothy Lloyd stated at paragraph 47 that, “[...] the principles underlying the doctrine of penalty ought not to strike down a provision of this kind, in relation to a contract such as we are concerned with,...”.

    The Judges were only discussing ''a contract such as we are concerned with'' which was a far more complex one than ''all the previous cases shown to us {which} have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature.''

    Here, this is one of those cases Courts have seen many times before, a simple contract of a 'financial/economic nature' and the only interest Britannia Parking has in enforcing their £85 charge instead of the 'outstanding tariff' is Britannia Parking's profit alone.

    This position is reinforced in the earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal, where the judgment states:

    "44. All the previous cases shown to us have concerned contracts of a financial or at least an economic nature, where the transaction between the contracting parties can be assessed in monetary terms, as can the effects of a breach of the contract...

    45. The contract in the present case is entirely different. There is no economic transaction between the car park operator and the driver who uses the car park, if he or she stays no longer than two hours; there is no more than (for that time) a gratuitous licence to use the land...''

    47. ...When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker...should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome.

    The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829)6Bing. 141 at 148:

    “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.”

    The Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes the fact that a consumer cannot lawfully be expected to pay a disproportionate sum in compensation for a small sum owed and is the fundamental legislation relating to standard contracts between traders and consumers. It is applicable to this case.

    The ParkingEye v Beavis judgment makes clear that the Court of Appeal would have considered the disproportionate charge in this case (but not the more complex Beavis case or cases 'of its kind') a clear penalty. They found the contract in Beavis 'entirely different' from simple, commercial 'monetary transaction' cases such as they had seen before.

    'ENTIRELY DIFFERENT'. So without displaying intellectual dishonesty or copy/pasting skewed 'guidance' from the BPA or another parking industry interested party, I suggest that it would be impossible to apply ParkingEye v Beavis to this standard economic contract. As Britannia Parking have shown no other compelling reason or rationale for escalating a pound or two parking tariff to £85, they fall foul of the penalty rule...just as ParkingEye would have, if they had taken a 'standard contract' case to Supreme Court level.

    British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice: Grace Periods

    • Britannia state they allow a 10 minute grace period once the contract period has ended. They claim that the vehicle left the car park 22 minutes after the ticket had expired, but they have not included the 30 minute free period that this car park allows, so the 10 minute grace period should have been applied after 2 and a half hours to take account of the 30 minutes that is allowed for free. Therefore, the terms & conditions of the car park have not been breached.

    • Britannia state that "it is without dispute that the vehicle left the car park at 22:02". However, they have not provided any evidence that proves the clocks on their ANPR system and pay machines are calibrated and synchronised correctly (as requested in my POPLA appeal letter under heading ‘The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate’).

    British Parking Association – Breach of the Code of Practice (CoP): referred to debt collectors during the POPLA window

    • Britannia state that their breaching the rules of BPA’s CoP is no reason for a PCN charge to be cancelled. So in effect they are saying 'you breached the terms & conditions of this car park (in their view) so we will charge you for that, but it’s okay for us to breach the rules of the Code of Practice and not be held accountable for it'

    The fact is they did breach the CoP – In Britannia’s Statement letter dated 24th February 2016, they say that the PCN was sent to debt recovery on 2nd January 2016. Britannia’s rejection letter to my appeal with them is dated 18th January. If they had followed the CoP then they should have immediately contacted Debt Recovery Plus and put a stop to the recovery process. It is obvious that this did not happen as the first letter I received from Debt Recovery Plus is dated 28th January 2016 – 10 days after the date of their rejection letter. This clearly breaches the minimum period of 35 days that the CoP says must be allowed from the date that a challenge is rejected.

    The ANPR system is unreliable and inaccurate

    Britannia have stated that the ANPR cameras are monitored daily and that on the day in question the cameras were working at optimum level. However, they have not addressed my comments that the ANPR clock has not been shown to be synchronized to the pay and display machine clock. Further, they have failed to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

    Britannia have not explained how their system differs from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss in the case of Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 November 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from Parking Eye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Authorisation to act on behalf of landowners

    Britannia state:

    “......A copy of the contract with the landowner has been enclosed to show that we have a contractual agreement to manage the parking facilities, ........”

    I question whether this is a ‘copy of the contract’. It is just a letter with a statement on it, which they claim has been signed by the landowner. The letter is on Britannia’s letterhead paper. In addition, how can I be sure that the person who signed the statement on this letter is really someone from the Landowner company?

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

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

    Yours faithfully,
    Last edited by YJ68; 04-03-2016 at 10:09 PM.
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 7th Mar 16, 7:41 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    POPLA comments window closed before end of rebuttal period
    Seeking some advice on the following:

    I had to email POPLA to ask that they extend the rebuttal window as I hadn’t received Britannia’s evidence pack at the same time that POPLA did.
    • They emailed back and gave me until 7th March.
    • I emailed my rebuttal response in pdf to their email address yesterday evening.
    • I then wanted to put a comment in the comments box on their portal to say that my rebuttal has been emailed to them, but the comments box had disappeared and there was a note to say that they have started to assess my appeal! (I assumed that as they had extended the rebuttal window that they would have amended this on their portal)
    • So I responded to the email sent to me by POPLA giving me until 7th March, told them that the comments window had been shut even though they gave me until 7th March, and that I notice they had started assessing my appeal without having waited for my rebuttal. I then asked them to make sure that the pdf rebuttal letter will be considered with my original appeal letter before they complete their assessment.
    • Received email confirmations today (to both emails I sent them, from the same person) confirming the pdf letter will be added to my file.

    However, I have been reading some threads on here where it seems that POPLA may not be reading the pdf rebuttal letters emailed to them, and ruling in favour of the PPC without having considered all the evidence. Is there anything I can do before they complete their assessment to make sure that they do actually consider both my letters?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Mar 16, 10:47 PM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,268 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Happens all the time.

    The Portal 'window' gives you just six days 'from' when POPLA receive the evidence (never mind when you eventually get it) because they even count the day THEY get it as 'day one'. The Portal then closes after just six days on.

    So I think you've done all you can. You were right to get an extension of time but I'm not surprised to hear the Portal wasn't open any more. They should consider your comments but ony if those corresponding points were raised in the first appeal - so as long as the appeal mentioned unclear signs then it seems you can comment on signage evidence, and so on. That's what we are seeing. And some odd glitches like where they have chopped someone's PDF submission in half somehow and only read half of it...

    I really wouldn't worry. This is after all, only Britannia, one of the tamest small PPCs. I've ignored them completely in the past and we've never seen them do court, so even a lost POPLA appeal would not be a big deal. Hope you win, though!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 7th Mar 16, 11:23 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Thanks for the response Coupon-mad. Yes, all the comments are same things commented on in my first appeal letter.

    Yes, I read the post about someone's pdf being chopped off half way - not even sure how that can possibly happen!

    I will let you know the outcome.
    • Caustic70
    • By Caustic70 26th Mar 16, 6:56 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Caustic70
    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.
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 27th Mar 16, 11:39 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    UPDATE: POPLA appeal successful!
    Received POPLA's decision on Thursday that my appeal was successful. A HUGE thank you to everyone who assisted me in putting together my appeal - especially Coupon-mad.

    What is interesting is the point I won on was not even one that I had submitted as grounds of appeal!

    Here is the full decision:

    Decision
    Successful

    Assessor Name
    Sirak Solomon

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states the signage at the site was unclear. He states that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the parking charge is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The appellant states that a reasonable Grace Period was not applied. The appellant has questioned the reliability of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems at the site.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the Driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. PoFA 2012 sets out to parking operators that “2) The notice must – f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)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;” The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of the Notice to Keeper, where it states “if we do not receive details of the driver within 28 days of this notice, then if the charge is still outstanding we will have the right to recover payment from the keeper”. As such, the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.
    Last edited by YJ68; 27-03-2016 at 11:44 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Mar 16, 12:49 AM
    • 40,372 Posts
    • 52,268 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sirak Solomon take a bow!

    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?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • LC69
    • By LC69 1st Apr 16, 6:45 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    LC69
    Hi can anyone help me? I received 2 letters from Britannia parking group ltd stating i had received a parking fine for parking in East Kilbride car park. I have now received a letter from debt recovery plus stating I now owe them £160. I attend pure gym in East Kilbride and I was attending the gym for 1hr on the date of parking fine. I did park in the car park and I registered my car in the computer at pure gym which allows me to park for 2hrs free.
    I have not contacted either Britannia or debt recovery plus at all as I originally thought this had been an error. ( silly maybe)
    I was also advised by some colleagues and looking online that if I live in Glasgow and the company issuing the parking fine is based in England I would not have to pay this. Is this correct? I am now worried regarding this debt letter.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Apr 16, 7:47 PM
    • 12,409 Posts
    • 14,793 Thanks
    Redx
    please read the NEWBIES sticky thread by coupon-mad at the top of this forum, especially read the part about Scotland and no keeper liability (so dont name the driver and NEVER contact a debt collector for these matters, no good will come of it)

    also read post #4 of that NEWBIES sticxky thread FAQ avout debt colLectors, the advice is always the same , IGNORE

    if you need further help THEN START YOUR OWN THREAD using the red NEW THREAD button , top or bottom left of the forum

    but as scotland is different due to the laws being different (no POFA2012) then IGNORE is the preferred action , but double check by reading up on scotland and those differences , also bearing in mind the court system is different too (compared to england and wales)

    IGNORE the debt collectoes, but DO complain yo the gym manager and insist that they cancel it due to your patronage of that gym, make them cancel it but do not tell them who was driving on the day in question (maybe it was me driving you there in your car ? lol)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • YJ68
    • By YJ68 26th Apr 16, 1:31 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    YJ68
    Date of decision and code
    Sirak Solomon take a bow!

    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?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-Mad, Apologies for not responding earlier to your message on 28th March.

    The date of the POPLA appeal decision was 24/3/16. Regarding the code, do you mean the Verification Code? That code is 6010186001.

    I will also add the full details of the outcome in the POPLA Decisions section.

    Once again, many thanks for your assistance.
    • Fatal Swan
    • By Fatal Swan 14th Oct 16, 11:18 PM
    • 255 Posts
    • 196 Thanks
    Fatal Swan
    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!
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 14th Oct 16, 11:40 PM
    • 1,714 Posts
    • 2,360 Thanks
    fisherjim
    Sorry to be blunt but you should start a new thread after reading the newbies thread. Adding to someone else's posts just confuses things.
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,764Posts Today

6,413Users online

Martin's Twitter