Britannia PCN

MattC3156

I have just re-read the original reply from Britannia (which I had to copy and paste into a separate Word document as the PDF didn't show all the text). I've now realised it says:

Please be aware this PCN has been issued to the vehicle on the date of the contravention, therefore we have not contacted the DVLA to obtain the keeper's details. All information has been provided by yourself. We have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver, however it is not unreasonable to assume you may be aware of their identity as you are aware of the signage on site and the contravention being issued.

So therefore does the keeper liability issue now not stand?

Redx

under POFA2012 they have to apply to the DVLA for keeper details and issue an NTK , REGARDLESS (within 14 days for ANPR or camera captures and between day 29 and day 56 for windscreen ticket follow ups to the keeper)

This idea of "assumption" fails various tests and has failed in many court cases

the driver may be a different person, an OCCUPANT of the vehicle might have seen the signs and commented on them and yet another OCCUPANT of the vehicle could be the keeper

so unless they successfully transfer liability to the KEEPER under POFA2012 , they fail completely

this assumes that the driver has not been identified

they have had 5 years to get to grips with POFA2012, so the fact they fail time and time again means they all lose a lot

MattC3156

Ok, thank you. So having done some more digging on the "comments" to Evidence Packs I have found some excellent threads and replies.

I will prepare a draft outlining the fact that an NTK has not been sent. Their appeal reply says that "the driver has been identified as the appellant" (which it clearly hasn't). I'll also look at the signs etc. as they were (according to the driver) confusing, not noticeable when trying to park with 2 children and misleading.

I will post up here before sending if someone would be good enough to make sure it reads ok?

Thanks again for your help - it is appreciated!

MattC3156

Ok so my response to their Evidence Pack is as follows if someone could take a look for me to make sure it makes sense:


=====================

Registered Keeper:
PCN:
POPLA Appeal Number:
Date Evidence Pack received:

POPLA Appeal - Evidence pack rebuttal

1) NOTICE TO KEEPER - NOT PROPERLY GIVEN UNDER POFA 2012
2) POOR SIGNAGE/DOES NOT COMPLY WITH BPA:COP


NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT GIVEN

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter has not been served in the correct manner and the PCN and any subsequent communications omit the required information if it were to establish 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012. Britannia have not included all the below required wording from paragraph 9, Schedule 4, of POFA 2012, namely:

''9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must—

(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i) specified in the notice; and
(ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(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;

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.'

(i) specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).”

In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and due to the many omissions, it is a nullity as the driver has not been identified for this parking event.

The BPA:CoP also supports the need for strict compliance in Section 21, paragraph 5:

“If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9).”

Britannia Parking have failed to comply in regards to this in respect – since a Notice to Keeper has not been sent.

Their argument is based on the fact that they have assumed the driver’s details. In their reply to my original appeal (###### APPEAL RESPONSE), Britannia Parking state that it is not unreasonable to assume the keeper is aware if the driver’s identity due to the fact the keeper is aware of the signage at the location – which was the original basis of the previous argument.

I would argue that this is a totally unreasonable assumption and, as I am sure the POPLA assessor is aware, has failed in many court cases. However, it is not unreasonable that the driver may be a different person than the keeper. An OCCUPANT of the vehicle might have seen the signs and commented on them and yet another OCCUPANT of the vehicle could be the keeper.

The “statement” from Britannia Parking (####### Statement) also states that they received an appeal from the driver on 05/09/2017 – this false since my appeal clearly states in bold font at the start of the appeal “Keeper was the selected choice” (see ###### Appeal). Their statement also goes on to claim that:

We have identified the appellant to be the driver of the vehicle and liable for the Parking charge notice. The driver has supplied us with the home address in the appeal letter. And we therefore find them to be liable for the parking charge notice.

I am confused as to how this is the case as the driver has not been identified at any point. Britannia Parking have not supplied any evidence of the identity of the driver. I, as the registered keeper, have appealed against the PCN and supplied my name and address as required under the terms of their appeals procedure. Despite this, Britannia Parking maintain that the driver has appealed the PCN (which again is false) but have failed to supply any evidence as to this statement.

No details of the driver have ever been supplied and Britannia Parking’s claims that the appeal is not valid are based on assumptions and blatant lies as previously shown. Britannia do not have the correct party for this PCN since they have failed to establish “keeper liability” and have not identified the driver which is fundamental to their case against me.

POOR SIGNAGE

The BPA:CoP Appendix B Entrance Signs clearly state that:

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”

I would argue that the signs shown on Picture Pack Zone A and in particular pictures 1, 2 and 3 do not comply with this due to their placement. Firstly, they are placed around 6-8 feet from the kerb side and require the driver to look away from the road ahead. This in itself is inherently dangerous since there is a sharp bend to the left to enter the car park. This is coupled with the fact that there are vehicles approaching from the opposite direction due to a busy "drive thru" exit and vehicles exiting from the car park. Expecting a driver to notice and read signs sufficiently on the entrance is totally unreasonable and downright dangerous. There are also large distracting road markings further taking the driver’s attention away from the conditions of parking.

Britannia Parking have supplied photographs which show signs with mixed colours, fonts and instructions. Some appear to be new, others have more conditions and options available making it totally unclear and confusing as to which instructions need to be followed. This, I would argue, goes against the terms stated in BPA:CoP paragraph 18.3.

Yours


REGISTERED KEEPER

====================

I also noted that the CoP also state that the Evidence Pack has to be sent to me as well. All I have received was an email notification from POLPA - nothing else (I have checked spam folder). Do Britannia have to send the pack to me separately or can they claim the email from POLPA is sufficient?

Thanks in advance!

MattC3156

The Evidence Pack has been received in the post today - signed for so I am guessing they have completed this part of the CoP.

When someone is able could my post #15 be checked?

I am considering adding a section regarding the landowner authority as well since this does not appear to comply either as there are no details about CoP 7.3 included in the pack, just a signed letter from a manager of the shopping centre.

MattC3156

Ok, so I have come up with my final arguments. I've removed the section about NTK as I would like to think the POLPA adjudicator is aware of this. So here it is:


Registered Keeper:
PCN:
POPLA Appeal Number:
Date Evidence Pack received:17/10/2017

POPLA Appeal - Evidence pack rebuttal

1) NOTICE TO KEEPER - NOT PROPERLY GIVEN UNDER POFA 2012
2) POOR SIGNAGE/DOES NOT COMPLY
3) NO PROOF OF LAND OWNER AUTHORITY

1 - NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT GIVEN

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter has not been served in the correct manner and the PCN and any subsequent communications omit the required information if it were to establish 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012. Britannia have not included all the required wording from paragraph 9, Schedule 4, of POFA 2012.

In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and due to the many omissions, it is a nullity as the driver has not been identified for this parking event.

The British Parking Association: Codes of Practice (BPA:CoP) also supports the need for strict compliance in Section 21, paragraph 5:

“If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the car park where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9).”

Britannia Parking have failed to comply in regards to this in respect – since a Notice to Keeper has not been sent.

Their argument is based on the fact that they have assumed the driver’s details. In their reply to my original appeal (###### APPEAL RESPONSE), Britannia Parking state that it is not unreasonable to assume the keeper is aware if the driver’s identity due to the fact the keeper is aware of the signage at the location – which was the original basis of the previous argument.

I would argue that this is a totally unreasonable assumption and, as I am sure the POPLA assessor is aware, has failed in many court cases. However, it is not unreasonable that the driver may be a different person than the keeper. An OCCUPANT of the vehicle might have seen the signs and commented on them and yet another OCCUPANT of the vehicle could be the keeper.

The “statement” from Britannia Parking (####### Statement) also states that they received an appeal from the driver on 05/09/2017 – this is false since my appeal clearly states in bold font at the start of the appeal “Keeper was the selected choice” (see ###### Appeal). Their statement also goes on to claim that:

"We have identified the appellant to be the driver of the vehicle and liable for the Parking charge notice. The driver has supplied us with the home address in the appeal letter. And we therefore find them to be liable for the parking charge notice."

I am confused as to how this is the case as the driver has not been identified at any point. Britannia Parking have not supplied any evidence of the identity of the driver. I, as the registered keeper, have appealed against the PCN and supplied my name and address as required under the terms of their appeals procedure. Despite this, Britannia Parking maintain that the driver has appealed the PCN (which again is false) but have failed to supply any evidence as to this statement.

No details of the driver have ever been supplied and Britannia Parking’s claims that the appeal is not valid are based on assumptions and blatant lies as previously shown. Britannia do not have the correct party for this PCN since they have failed to establish “keeper liability” and have not identified the driver which is fundamental to their case against me.

2 - POOR SIGNAGE

The BPA:CoP Appendix B Entrance Signs clearly states that:

“The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”

I would argue that the signs shown on Picture Pack Zone A and in particular pictures 1, 2 and 3 do not comply with this due to their placement. Firstly, they are placed around 6-8 feet from the kerb side and require the driver to look away from the road ahead. This in itself is inherently dangerous since there is a sharp bend to the left to enter the car park. This is coupled with the fact that there are vehicles approaching from the opposite direction due to a busy "drive thru" exit and vehicles exiting from the car park. Expecting a driver to notice and read signs sufficiently on the entrance is totally unreasonable and downright dangerous. There are also large distracting road markings further taking the driver’s attention away from the conditions of parking.

Britannia Parking have supplied photographs which show signs with mixed colours, fonts and instructions. Some appear to be new, others have more conditions and options available making it totally unclear and confusing as to which instructions need to be followed. This goes against the terms stated in BPA:CoP paragraph 18.3.


3 - NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY

Britannia Parking have submitted “evidence” which claims they have landowner authority (###### Landowner). This evidence is worthless as no other evidence is provided demonstrating a full/redacted landowner contract. Nor have they provided proof as per the terms of BPA:CoP 7.3, therefore no showing they have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices at the site.

Britannia Parking have failed to provide the keeper of the vehicle with the required Notice to Keeper in order to transfer keeper liability. They have also failed to identify the driver, despite numerous un-evidenced and false claims to having done this, they have issued signage which does not comply with BPA:CoP and have failed to provide the necessary evidence of authority to issues PCNs at the site. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.


Yours


REGISTERED KEEPER

Redx

never assume that a popla adjudicator is aware of anything

the rebuttal should rebut any and all issues with the claimants evidence pack

never assume

MattC3156

Update on my case this morning and appeal was successful!

The reasoning was due to Britannia Parking failing to comply with PoFA 2012 and not identifying the driver through the correct channels.

Thank you for the input and advice on where to look for appeals etc.