Britannia Parking Final Reminder

Quentin

How to deal with the ppcs poplA response is covered in the Newbies FAQ thread (#3)

Stormy2

ok.. I did look and couldn't find it. I find the whole #3 thing hard as no numbers... so many links. I'll try again and if nothing I'll just have to reply myself. Only have a week to do it. Thank you.

Quentin

Each post in a thread is numbered. The first in each thread is #1.

This post is #104 in your thread

Stormy2

Second attempt at finding anything that would help me deal with this mountain of paperwork apparently proving that everything in that template that I copied is counter claimed has again drawn a blank. Probably my fault but to be honest the entire thing is making me ill. Way too much stress. The driver bought a ticket. It doesn't seem to matter either way. I can't deal with this any more. Thanks for the help given.. sad to say they won! We will only use car parks with a barrier in future to stop us being scammed like this again.

Coupon-mad

Second attempt at finding anything that would help me deal with this mountain of paperwork apparently proving that everything in that template that I copied is counter claimed has again drawn a blank

Wow you are easily impressed by a pile of template drivel...PPCs always do this.

The paperwork is not that impressive, apart from photos, it is all the same every time. You're allowing your judgement to be clouded by bulk papers!

PLEASE don't tell us you just paid, pointlessly, when POPLA might be about to tell you that you won? What will you do if POPLA now say next week, that you won?

And it's only non-scary, little old 'Britannia' a firm who nobody here pays, even if POPLA give a decision the wrong way.

In POPLA Decisions (top of the forum) two posters have just posted about their POPLA wins v Britannia, in the past 24 hours.

Their posts were up there already for you to read yesterday (I read them then, you could have done as well) and they both provide links to their Britannia POPLA threads, which show how they did a really simple list of 'comments on the evidence', which is the stage you are at.

Stormy2

We replied to the PoPLA set of paperwork. We noticed that on the print out of the car registration numbers given from that day it had a reg very similar to ours from exact time we purchased the ticket. Went to DVLA and found it wasn't a valid reg so convinced that ours was entered wrongly. That is how we replied and got knocked back with unsuccessful this morning.

Can you tell me please if we just wait now for the court case as happy to go to court over this. I can't do any more legal paperwork.. I've looked at the ones on here and it's too much for me as I am very unwell at this time.

Thank you

Umkomaas

Can we see the POPLA assessor's decision please. Would you please insert some paragraphs into it, as the usual wall of text that comes from POPLA is so difficult to read - and forum regulars are reading so much text each day. Help us to help you.

Can you tell me please if we just wait now for the court case as happy to go to court over this.

Britannia? You'll have one very long wait ......

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Britannia_Parking_Group.html

Stormy2

The decision that PoPLA have sent to us is only relating to our first submission which was sent by using a template from this site and then adjusting to suit our circumstances. We then received a big wad of information from them and on the print out of car registration numbers we saw one almost the same as ours at the exact same time of our purchase.. had the last letter missing for some reason. We checked with DVLA and no car exists with that registration so it was obvious to us that it had to be ours keyed in incorrectly. They have not responded to that point whatsoever which is the MAIN point in making this decision. I will paste it now.....

The terms and conditions of the site state: “£100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist failed to make a payment. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the motorist’s vehicle entered the car park at 13:39 and exited at 15:31 on the day in question, staying for a total of one hour and 52 minutes. A system generated print out has also been provided, showing that a payment had not been made in connection with the motorist’s vehicle registration, EN66 AKO, that day.

The appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, each of which I will address separately. The appellant states that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the operator has not demonstrated that the individual it is pursuing is liable for the charge. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the vehicle in question is, so I must consider the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the operator has issued the PCN to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant, and that the operator has successfully transferred liability to the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant states that the signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and is not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver. I refer to Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, which outlines to operators: “The driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver must be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Further, Section 18.3 states: “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… signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. Upon review of this, I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to bring the site’s terms and conditions to the attention of motorists and consider that the motorist was presented with a reasonable opportunity to review them before deciding whether to park their vehicle. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage is prominent enough to form contracts with motorists.

The appellant states that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring in a claim for trespass. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The appellant states that the operator has advised that the parking charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action.

The appellant advises that the operator is issuing a further charge of £1.50 for all credit and debit card transactions. POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly and is unable to comment on this. The appellant states that the motorist purchased a parking ticket on the day in question. While I acknowledge this ground of appeal and the appellant’s photograph of the payment machine which states that tickets do not need to be displayed, should the motorist have purchased a valid ticket, it would have been recorded on the operator’s payment log. Ultimately, it is a motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to the terms and conditions of a site when parking on it. As the motorist failed to make a payment, they have failed to comply. As such, I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Umkomaas

A really frustrating decision. They don't seem to have acknowledged or responded to your point that your vehicle's registration number (bar one digit) was clearly there in the log at exactly the time of parking. A nonsense, but you won't get any joy from going back to them on it. A judge would see straight through it - but as it's Britannia you won't get that satisfaction.

I'm curious about the following paragraph from the assessment:

The appellant states that the operator lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring in a claim for trespass. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines to operators: !!!8220;If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges!!!8221;. The appellant states that the operator has advised that the parking charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action.

Have you missed something out from the copy and paste? Did Britannia actually provide POPLA with any form of evidence to prove they had written authority to operate on the car park?

Also, not sure what this means - looks like some random sentence has been dropped in here, with no real context with anything else around it.

The appellant states that the operator has advised that the parking charge will increase to £160 in the first instance of further action.

Stormy2

I'm really sorry but due to a stroke I have had so much trouble being able to have sufficient cognitive skills for this. In the end I was clearly exasperating many of the people on here who told me just to copy paste everything so that's what I did. I can't get my head around any of it if truth be known and I was just very happy to see our registration number there albeit having been incorrectly keyed in and very surprised they ignored that to focus on the template I sent them previously. As you say a judge would see this immediately so we will just have to wait for the court case and go with that then I am guessing?

I didn't miss anything out that is it complete.