Britannia parking pcn

Le_Kirk

You need to read the Newbie Stickies, then start your own thread. If you cannot find the newbie thread just follow this link.

sil74

Just in the process of submitting my rebuttal for the Britannia evidence submitted in the POPLA appeal but can't see a facility for attaching documents. How does it work?
thanks

KeithP

Did you not see this link in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html

sil74

Hi Keith, thanks. Yes I followed that guide step by step to submit my first appeal to POPLA. However what I am in at the moment is to rebut the evidence submitted by Britannia.... i.e their statement etc and when I log into popla to track my appeal I can see all submitted documentation by Britannia but I don't seem to have an option to attach a file (for my comments) but only a box with the option of typing in my comments/rebuttal.

Coupon-mad

You cannot attach anything at comments stage. You cannot add new evidence.

You literally have 2000 characters (not words) to do some bullet point comments.

Don't try to attach a file or email POPLA. IMHO the Portal is where you comment, concisely.

sil74

ok thanks I misunderstood some of the examples I followed in the newbies thread to rebut the comment and I thought you could attach a file. Will modify so it is just comments.

Coupon-mad

And only concentrate on what will win. No repeating your appeal. Show us your thoughts, first!

sil74

Here is what I have put together so far.... thanks for any further advice/ideas


1) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
drivers
Britannia parking has submitted, in support of their evidence pack, a list of Greene King Pubs allegedly managed by Britannia instead of the relevant contract. This statement is redacted making it impossible to identify the alleged signatory, therefore making this piece of evidence worthless. Even if identification of the alleged signatory was possible there is still no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the landowner contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. The submitted document does not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise (BPA:CoP) to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.
As Britannia are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver Britannia has failed to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.
The contract evidence supplied by Britannia is worthless, as it cannot be scrutinised for BPA CoP compliance.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives Britannia the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849, S!!!!hrope County Court, 16th May 2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, Britannia have breached the BPA:CoP section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.
Should a basic contract be produced mentioning parking charge notices, 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 the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.
In light of this, and in addition to these points, i will reiterate point 2 of my initial appeal

2) Poor signage / signage does not comply to the BPA COP

In rebuttal to the claim by Britannia that the signage is clearly displayed, and there is signage at the car park entrance, i will refer to the BPA CoP, which Britannia fails to comply with, despite claiming otherwise:
Section 18, paragraph 2 (S18P2):
!!!8220;Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.!!!8221;
And i draw your attention to this paragraph in the aforementioned Appendix B:
!!!8220;The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.!!!8221;

The evidence that Britannia has provided shows a vehicle entering the car park. As highlighted in my appeal my vehicle specifically turned left from the main road into the entrance of the car park.
This particular entrance is approached from a 30mph road, and this entrance takes the form of a tight 180 degree bend.
The !!!8220;P!!!8221; entry sign has been placed on the right wall far in a distance, and facing perpendicular to the direction of travel, as shown in my submitted appeal.
To view this sign, a driver using this entrance would have to turn their head 90 degrees; forcing the driver to take their eyes of the road ahead, while at the same time, navigating a tight and complex bend.
Given the anticipated speed of a vehicle using this entrance (15mph as per BPA guidelines for a vehicle entering a car park from a 30mph road), and the complexity of the road, the decision by the operator to place the sign on the far end wall, and at a perpendicular angle, is a contravention of the following guideline: !!!8220;The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.!!!8221;, it is not possible to drive around a 180 degree bend, and look at a sign, without needing to look away from the road ahead.
Even if it was capable to view the sign, safely, while driving through this entrance (which i submit that it is not), Britannia have placed it in a position where it is not visible to driver until they have turned into the car park itself, this means that any driver is unable to make an informed decision before entry. This evidence, and the fact that i am writing this appeal, shows that Britannia wishes to entrap motorists with their poor application of signage.
Furthermore all Britannia has submitted is a map with location of signs but not details of such signs neither a perspective view from the point the car was allegedly parked.

3) Change in T&C for car park usage
The contract provided in the evidence pack by Britannia is only dated November 2017 so one must assume that is how long they have been operating this car park. I would like to draw your attention that before this car park was free to use for pub clients, albeit access was limited in by an access bar (supporting poles still visible on the pictures included and that was the case last time myself, here appealing as keeper, and the driver used this facility).
One must think that in light of a change of this nature and now starting to charge for paying and displaying upon parking you would be expected to highlight clearly and harder above mentioned changes in order to avoid motorists being confused and entrapped in contracts which they never intended to enter.

KeithP

There are 6,591 characters there.

Please re-read post #46.

sil74

Hopefully this complies, I don't have much else to be honest

• Britannia parking has submitted, in support of their evidence pack, a list of Greene King Pubs car parks allegedly managed by Britannia instead of the relevant contract. This statement is redacted making it impossible to identify the alleged signatory, therefore making this piece of evidence worthless. Britannia are not the owners of this land and they cannot form a contract with the driver Britannia has failed to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.
• Britannia claims that the signage is clearly displayed, and there is signage at the car park entrance, I will like to point out that this particular entrance is approached from a 30mph road, and this entrance takes the form of a tight 180 degree bend. The !!!8220;P!!!8221; entry sign has been placed on the right wall far in a distance, and facing perpendicular to the direction of travel, as shown in my submitted appeal. To view this sign, a driver using this entrance would have to turn their head 90 degrees; forcing the driver to take their eyes of the road ahead, while at the same time, navigating a tight and complex bend. The decision by the operator to place the sign on the far end wall, and at a perpendicular angle, is a contravention of the following guideline: !!!8220;The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.!!!8221;.
• The alleged contract provided is dated Nov!!!8217;17 so must assume this is when they have started operating this car park. Before this car park was free to use for customers with access limited by an access bar. One must think that in light of a change of this nature and now starting to charge for paying and displaying upon parking you would be expected to highlight clearly and harder above mentioned changes in order to avoid motorists being confused and entrapped in contracts which they never intended to enter.

Thanks