Britannia Appeal decision question

DazzleDeluxe

Hi,

Having read the forums I cannot find an answer to this one, apologies if I have missed it but it is a fairly simple one for you experts.

Had a 'PCN' from Britannia (It was ANPR camera on car park) which arrived after the 15 day keeper liability window so appealed to Britannia on that basis using the excellent templates.

Their rejection of the appeal and reply was as follows:

"It is not a requirement for the Parking Charge Notices issued to you, that we must notify you within 14 days. This only applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a Parking Charge Notice. As we did not, we have 35 days to notify you of the Parking Charge Notice."

Firstly I've never heard of the 35 day thing, is this true?
Secondly if they are not relying on the keeper liability and we have not told them who the driver is do I even bother appealing to POPLA?

Thanks in advance.

Guys_Dad

Yes. "I was not the driver and they are not using POFA. As it was so long ago, I cannot recall who was actually driving that day"

Redx

you would be a fool if you did not appeal to popla

I would use several points, but not following POFA 2012 would be one of the main appeal points as guys dad correctly pointed out

ie:- it is only cancelled when one of the following happens, not before

the PPC cancels the pcn

POPLA rule in your favour

you win in court sometime in the next 6 years

the first 2 are preferable, the first one has not happened, you control the second option, so do so

Fruitcake

DazzleDeluxe wrote: »

Hi,

Having read the forums I cannot find an answer to this one, apologies if I have missed it but it is a fairly simple one for you experts.

Had a 'PCN' from Britannia (It was ANPR camera on car park) which arrived after the 15 day keeper liability window so appealed to Britannia on that basis using the excellent templates.

Their rejection of the appeal and reply was as follows:

"It is not a requirement for the Parking Charge Notices issued to you, that we must notify you within 14 days. This only applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a Parking Charge Notice. As we did not, we have 35 days to notify you of the Parking Charge Notice."

Firstly I've never heard of the 35 day thing, is this true?
Secondly if they are not relying on the keeper liability and we have not told them who the driver is do I even bother appealing to POPLA?

Thanks in advance.

It is irrelevant whether or not they say POFA 2012 applies. You can't say, the law does not apply and then break the law any more than they can say an Act of Parliament does not apply simply because they say so.


POFA 2012 states that where ANPR cameras are used, the NTK must arrive no later than day 14 starting the day after the event. It didn't, so you use that as your winning appeal point at PoPLA, but make sure you use all the other standard appeal points as well.


Did you get a PoPLA code with your rejection? If so, check it is a valid code on the Parking Cowboys website. If not, complain to the BPA and DVLA that you appealed but did not get a PoPLA code and then let the BPA sort it out.

DazzleDeluxe

Thanks for the quick replies.

I have got a valid POPLA number so will get to work on the appeal to them.

Coupon-mad

Really easy to win as long as the driver has never been implied. The keeper can't be liable but astonishingly, POPLA have shown themselves to be super-stupid as regards the POFA recently. It is shameful the rubbish the 'Assessors' are spouting about the POFA seeing as that's the only poxy tiny aspect in ONE short Schedule of law they need to even know inside out! Rant over.

So it does need spelling out and the deadline in paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 needs specifically quoting.

Plus a one-liner about unclear signs, specifically including the fact the signs do not inform a driver how the ANPR data captured will be used, which is a BPA CoP and ICO breach. And a one liner saying they don't own the land so you put them to proof of their landowner authority.

DazzleDeluxe

Just to let you know the appeal went to POPLA and was not contested by Britannia. Their reason was 'good will', however they also sent a letter recorded delivery saying the relevant car was now banned from parking on the relevant car park!!
Oh well never mind!!
Thanks for the assist

pappa_golf

would love to see what they did if you transferred the V5 to your other half's name ?


they have chased the registered keeper , but banned the vehicle instead

Umkomaas

DazzleDeluxe wrote: »

Just to let you know the appeal went to POPLA and was not contested by Britannia. Their reason was 'good will', however they also sent a letter recorded delivery saying the relevant car was now banned from parking on the relevant car park!!
Oh well never mind!!
Thanks for the assist

Was this a retailer's car park?

Herzlos

DazzleDeluxe wrote: »

Just to let you know the appeal went to POPLA and was not contested by Britannia. Their reason was 'good will', however they also sent a letter recorded delivery saying the relevant car was now banned from parking on the relevant car park!!
Oh well never mind!!
Thanks for the assist

Napier tried doing the same but I never heard much more of it. To be fair, if the car is banned (what if you sell it to a local?) then all they can do is pursue you for trespass next time, which is limited to damages.

I think this is a scheme they think will make it easier to issue you a ticket again, so I wouldn't worry too much about it, because it can't. As said, if it's a retail park, I'd complain to every store in there, saying that Brinannia are denying you access to their stores. I'd also complain to the BPA and DVLA as you are in effect being punished for using your legal right to appeal an invalid invoice.

Plus, if the vehicle is banned, does that mean the vehicle has agreed not to visit, and any trespass claim would be targetted at the vehicle? As you might guess, it's not possible to form a contract with a non-sentient entity like a car.

fisherjim

A lot of "good will" shown by banning a vehicle in retalliation for their inefficiencies!
What a childish bunch of Muppets, how can you ban a car vrn, which is only an indicator of ownership on the day in question.

If it were to be sold today, what heinous crime exactly would the new keeper be held responsible for if their naughty car is seen in a car park Britannia don't even own.