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
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 19th Nov 17, 9:49 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 4Thanks
    AaronGivens
    PCN - Northern Parking Services - Halfords
    • #1
    • 19th Nov 17, 9:49 PM
    PCN - Northern Parking Services - Halfords 19th Nov 17 at 9:49 PM
    Hi,

    The Keeper has been through all the stickies and read up on all the details of how to pursue a PCN. However The Keeper keep umming and ahhing about the strength of the argument. The Keeper wanted to run it by you all just to gauge if you think its legit.

    The Keeper recieved a postal Parking Charge Notice from Northern Parking Services. They claimed The Driver was over the limit of 45 minutes to stay in their car park which was at Halfords. The Driver popped into the store and had a look around for some speaker equipment however they didn't have anything The Driver liked or wanted. The Driver had a look around the store however there was no one to ask questions. The Keeper went out the store after being there for about 10 minutes and went to run errands. The Driver came back drove off.

    The Keeper got a letter a couple of days later with The Keepers name at the top saying they want the typical £100 or £60 within 14 days. Now The Driver will be honest with you as they had no idea these ANPR camera's where there and if im being totally honest The Driver didn't see any signs. The car park is quite tight and The Driver usually focuses of trying to maneuver rather then look around for signs. The letter looks legit (as much as legit can be) entry and exit times, Reg, reference number, pictures of The Keeper car. The Driver over stayed by 43 minuted so a total of 88 minutes.

    The Driver went back to the store to take pictures as suggested and the entrance sign does say 45 minute 30 minute drop off. The signs themselves are garbage and you have to stand 2 feet from them as there is a explosion of rainbow colours obscuring any legible writing. Lord knows why they aren't clearer (money The Keeper expects). The Driver spoke to a store worker and they said 'well there are loads of signs so you pretty much have to pay'. Cool thanks. The Driver asked about who to speak to they said they didn't know. The Keeper wrote to Halfords complaining of the awful signs and sent pictures to demonstrate but they asked for a receipt which The Keeper does't have.

    The Keeper sent further proof of signage and The Keeper expects a reply back which will be bore off and sorry cant help. The Keeper intends to then appeal to NPS and then take it further to POPLA. Looking at other cases they seem much much stronger then my 'The Driver didn't see the signs otherwise The Driver wouldn't of parked there for that long'. CCTV would show The Driver in the store looking at goods but without a receipt and the fact that the police are only allowed access to the footage how does The Keepers argument stand?

    The Keeper has all of the arguments ready to write out and The Keeper has the BPA write out regarding challenging as keeper of the vehicle. Perhaps The Keeper am looking for someone on here to tell me if The Keeper should bite the bullet or go for it. Its a legitimate error but The Keeper is worried its too weak of an argument.

    Thank you in advance.
    Last edited by AaronGivens; 19-11-2017 at 11:35 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Nov 17, 10:04 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:04 PM
    • #2
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:04 PM
    personally , I believe THE DRIVER did those things above , so any sensible person would narrate what THE DRIVER has done , so the PPC cannot read who did what if they come on here (which they all do)

    so edit the above

    then if it was a postal notice to the keeper (NTK), send them the blue text BPA appeal , then take it to popla

    if it was a windscreen notice, send the blue text template around day 26

    any appeal wont be based on "what happened" , they NEVER are
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Nov 17, 10:05 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:05 PM
    • #3
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:05 PM
    Have you read post #1 on the NEWBIES FAQ sticky/pinned thread yet?

    Just send the appropriate appeal from there without change.

    The first stage really is that simple.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Nov 17, 10:06 PM
    • 15,966 Posts
    • 24,779 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:06 PM
    • #4
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:06 PM
    NPS - small fry operator.

    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203549682-Northern-Parking-North-East-Limited

    Follow the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 and send a blue text template initial appeal. Then work up a POPLA appeal.

    Do plenty of research before coming back with random questions.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 19th Nov 17, 10:17 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    • #5
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:17 PM
    • #5
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:17 PM
    Thank you for the swift replies much appreciated. @RedX The driver appreciates it @Keith The Driver has done the research on the Newbie stickies and The Driver intends to send the blue text template @Umkomaas The Driver will do thank you all
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Nov 17, 10:30 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:30 PM
    • #6
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:30 PM
    ...The Driver intends to send the blue text template...
    Originally posted by AaronGivens
    No,no,no.

    It's the keeper that sends the appeal.

    Please get that bit right.


    Due to over-enthusiastice editing, a few sentences in your original post are similarly wrong:
    The Keeper has been through all the stickies...
    The Keeper keeps umming and ahhing...
    The Keeper wanted to run...
    .... and many more.
    Last edited by KeithP; 19-11-2017 at 10:37 PM.
    .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Nov 17, 10:31 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:31 PM
    • #7
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:31 PM
    ps:- THE KEEPER received the postal notices and any postal letters , because NPS do not know who was driving !! (hint)

    so NPS have never sent any postal notices to the driver, only to THE KEEPER

    so all the correspondence since that day has been between NPS and the KEEPER , capiche ?

    THE KEEPER sends the blue text appeal , no need to wait either
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 19th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    • #8
    • 19th Nov 17, 10:55 PM
    AaronGivens, you aren't understanding this keeper/driver distinction are you?

    It was the driver that looked around the store and decided not to buy anything.

    It was the driver that did everything else on that day.

    It is the keeper that is now planning to appeal.

    Please edit again your opening post and use a bit of intelligence before deciding to change the keeper to the driver and vice versa.

    This isn't just petty pedantry.
    The parking companies trawl forums like this looking for people to trip themselves up and currently you are throwing away winning points.


    Also:
    Is your forum username your real name?
    If so, you would be wise to get that changed to something more anonymous.
    To do that, click on the Report button on one of your posts and seek help from the MSE Forum Team.
    Last edited by KeithP; 19-11-2017 at 11:13 PM.
    .
    • Ralph-y
    • By Ralph-y 19th Nov 17, 11:02 PM
    • 2,394 Posts
    • 2,918 Thanks
    Ralph-y
    • #9
    • 19th Nov 17, 11:02 PM
    • #9
    • 19th Nov 17, 11:02 PM
    "The Keeper wrote to Halfords complaining of the awful signs and sent pictures to demonstrate but they asked for a receipt which The Keeper does't have."

    write back and explain that you did not buy anything that day ... but you had been looking at that very ... very expensive gizmo that they sell .........

    but now you are going to take your ££ to a competitor ......

    Ralph
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 19th Nov 17, 11:21 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    Hi Keith,

    No its not my real name thankfully and cheers just learning as The Keeper goes along. Thank you for the clarifications. Just sent my appeal as suggested now with the blue text. Ralph oh the Keeper will be
    • Redx
    • By Redx 19th Nov 17, 11:28 PM
    • 16,938 Posts
    • 21,077 Thanks
    Redx
    still not right , THE KEEPER received the postal notices etc

    THE DRIVER parked the vehicle and THE DRIVER popped into the store etc

    2 different entities

    what happened on the day happened to THE DRIVER

    WHAT HAPPENED since that day happened to THE KEEPER

    come back when you get your KEEPER popla code
    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
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 29th Nov 17, 8:42 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    Hi,

    I have a Keeper popla code. It would appear that the appeal was rejected. What are the next steps?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Nov 17, 8:45 PM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 3,166 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi,

    I have a Keeper popla code. It would appear that the appeal was rejected. What are the next steps?
    Originally posted by AaronGivens
    Your next step is to read post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    But submit your complaint to Halfords before that.
    .
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 1st Dec 17, 1:02 AM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    Hi,

    A complaint was made to Halfords however they suggested the keeper of the vehicle appeal to Northern Parking Services. Would someone be able to take a look at a draft of a POPLA appeal please. Its quite lengthy so there is a concern it could be too long.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 1st Dec 17, 8:43 AM
    • 15,966 Posts
    • 24,779 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Just post it up. If someone has time you’ll get some feedback.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 1st Dec 17, 1:25 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    Dear Sir/Madam,


    Re: Parking Charge Reference Number: ***
    Vehicle registration: ***
    POPLA Validation code:


    A notice to keeper was issues on the 14th of November 2017 and received by me the registered keeper of * Reg * for an alleged contravention of 'Breach of the terms of the parking at Carlton Road'. I am writing to you as the registered Keeper.


    The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:


    1. The Signage is not clear, legible, obstructive, and not maintained. The amount demanded is a penalty.
    2. Questionable authenticity of the photograph taken of the vehicle
    3. No evidence of Landowners Authority. The operator is put to strict proof in accordance and full compliance within the relams of the BPA code of practice which they belong.
    4. The Operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.




    1) The amount demanded by Northern Parking Services is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act of 2015. The authority on this matter is in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis. This case was characterised by clear and ample signage, unobstructed and where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether or not to accept. In this case the signage was neither clear, legible and with large lettering as stated in the BPA Code of practice.


    B4.1 If vehicles are parked under a contract, you may take parking control and enforcement action only when the contract entitles you to. This includes issuing parking tickets. The contract terms must be included on a sign British Parking Association Code of practice at each entry point to the site, and on other signs visible throughout the area concerned.


    As provided the sign at the entrance does not provide enough detail in terms of the contract, terms and conditions and parking charges that the motorist agrees to and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. As stated above in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis there must be time to read the sign. Due to the speed limit and height of the sign on Carlton Road there was not enough time to view, check mirrors, signal and maneuver into the parking area. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle. Therefore rendering the contract null and void.


    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.


    In this case where the vehicle was parked there was obstructed view from seeing any terms of conditions, as well as charges that could be held against the motorist. Please see attached photographs from where the vehicle was parked. The size of the lettering is far too small for a motorist to see unless standing inches from the sign. Also consider the colour palette used for the sign is obscure and also denotes no warning of charges for vehicles. Again from the entrance to the store on Carlton road as provided there is a large tent that blocks a wide angle to see any signs after purchasing goods. I refer again to the BPA code of conduct regarding signage.


    B4.2 Signs must show, in plain and intelligible language, all the terms on which an operator may wish to rely. Signs must be placed at the entrance to the site, and there must be enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to be aware of the risk involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.


    From where the vehicle was parked the angles of the signs are again not prominent and the view is masked by there being only two sides to the sign. In reality should a driver be parked at the wrong angle view of the signs are restricted.


    I would like to refer to two cases regarding point 1).


    POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Second case to point 1)


    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to 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. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.



    The photographs provided from where the vehicle was parked demonstrate the difficulty in not only seeing charges, maximum times of stay but the terms and conditions that they enforce.


    2) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos at the top of the images. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would also like to challenge Northern Parking Services to prove the legitimacy of these highly advanced stationary cameras and the technology behind them as well as the ability to time stamp the photographs. I would also like to request calibration certifications or parts there of, of the camera system that was used to photograph the vehicle in question.



    I refer to the BPA code of conduct regarding time stamping photographs. The photographs provided don't show a clear and legible time stamp for the photographs.


    7.1 You may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or altered digitally.


    3) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Northern Parking Services any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Northern Parking Services lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Northern Parking Services to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

    I contend that Northern Parking Services is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

    I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Northern Parking Services to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Northern Parking Services to prove otherwise so I require that Northern Parking Services produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Northern Parking Services can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.



    4) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability

    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:


    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."
    • AaronGivens
    • By AaronGivens 1st Dec 17, 1:27 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    AaronGivens
    This is the Popla appeal so far. The ending just needs to be finished. The Keeper has tailored it as best they can so hopefully it looks to a decent standard. There was a lot of information in the stickies so the keeper just spent a looooong time checking an tailoring it to the notice.
    • N.C
    • By N.C 1st Dec 17, 2:48 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    N.C
    Hi,
    I am new to this. Ive looked on the newbies page but cant seem to find my specific situation.
    Date of contravention 11.10.17

    The DRIVER parked in an all day car park which charges £3.20 (through an app) for any period between 8am to 11pm. THE DRIVER arrived at 13:18 and left at 15:16. THE DRIVER left without paying however THE DRIVER did pay through the app on the same day at 6pm.

    THE DRIVER was in a courtesy car at the time and therefore the first Notice To Keeper was sent to the garage 17.10.17

    They told them it was me and gave them my name and address to which Britania Parking sent a Notice to Driver/Hirer 28.11/17

    The Charge has now been increased to £100.

    THE DRIVER tried appealing online but it says it cant be done.(presume because it has passed the 29 days from the contravention?)

    Although the garage named me as driver, there are other people on the insurance that were able to drive it.

    Any help would be deeply appreciated
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Dec 17, 3:40 PM
    • 1,192 Posts
    • 1,233 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Why are you posting on someone elses thread?
    NEW POST is not a tricky button to find.

    This IS covered in the newbies thread. Has Britannia covered the requirements of POFA by sending out the hire documentation? No, Id bet not.
    But start your own thread. Do NOT hijack others, its incredibly rude.
    • N.C
    • By N.C 1st Dec 17, 3:42 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    N.C
    I have done but the more places I ask for help the more chance of getting it.

    And yes Britania have sent out a copy of the hire documentation.. any advice now?
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

2,266Posts Today

7,372Users online

Martin's Twitter