Britannia Parking Charge

Swan1305

Ok...I'm totally brain dead but here's my final (I hope) draft. I'd appreciate any thoughts on it please!




To whom it may concern,

I am writing, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxx, in regard to a parking charge notice, received by Britannia Parking. The driver has not been named, for his/her
protection. The POPLA validation code for this case is xxxx.

This alleged offence occurred on the 1st February 2018 and a notice to keeper was issued by Britannia Parking on 14th February. It was received on the 16th February.
An online appeal was submitted by email the same day and a reply, dated 16th March (and received a few days later), refused the appeal.

In my opinion, this parking charge was unfairly issued. I would like to base my appeal, on the following points:

1. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.3 Incorrect signage.
2. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 13.1 Grace period.
3. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 21.2 ANPR Signage Requirements.
4. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraphs 20.5a & 31.1. Date and Time Stamps.
5. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.2. Terms & Conditions / Entrance signs.
6. Breach of POFA 2012, paragraph 9, section (2a). Notice to Keeper Required Details.
7. Breach of POFA 2012, paragraph, sections (5-6). Notice delivery Period.

It is hereby acknowledged, that, as a member of the BPA, Britannia Parking would be subject to the BPA Code of Practice 2012-18.



1. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.3. Incorrect signage.

The !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; request, issued by Britannia Parking on the 14th February 2018, refers to a charge of £85 being due. Despite asking for dated photographs of the car parking signs, only non-dated images were presented. These images all refer to a parking charge of £100, there is not one sign that makes any mention of £85. This has been backed up by a personal visit to the car park in question.This contravenes their own terms and conditions, set out on the signage and makes the charge null and void.

The BPA code of practice states:

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.

18.6 The wording you include on your specific parking terms signage is your decision. However, you should try to use plain and intelligible language in all your signs and
information.

The images of the signage in the car park, provided by Britannia Parking themselves, shows that no such information was provided and the sum of £85 is not visible anywhere. The language was clearly not intelligible and has no reference to the amount being demanded. Please find images of these signs attached.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice regarding listing specific parking terms and plain and intelligible language. It also lists factually incorrect information.




2. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 13.1. Grace Period.

The date of the vehicle entering the car park in question, is stated as 1st February 2018, with the entry and exit times allegedly being 16:40 and 16:52.

I do not feel that such a charge for a period of 12 minutes (if proved correct and true), is a fair and justified action. If these times were proven correct, that would equate to a !!!8216;parking!!!8217; time of less than 10 minutes. The total time would include entering the car park, exiting the vehicle to locate and read informational signage, as it was not provided at the entrance point, deciding whether to remain or leave the car park, entering the vehicle and exiting the car park. The definition of a reasonable grace period, as defined by the BPA Code of Practice is stated as 10 minutes. Therefore, I would argue that no 'reasonable grace period' has been granted on this occasion. I would also like to request further information about the specific grace period for this particular location for terms of clarification.

The BPA code of practice states:

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the !!!8216;parking contract!!!8217; with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

In reference to the above, it is not possible to read the terms and conditions before parking and exiting the vehicle, thereby being forced into a contract without choice, by the definition of the
terms on Britannia Parking signage (see point 3 for further details). In addition to this, no reasonable grace period was granted.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice regarding a reasonable grace period.






3. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 21.2. ANPR Signage Requirements.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.!Signage at the entrance must explain that ANPR is in use at the location and the purpose for which it is being used. An image of a camera on its own without any further information would not be sufficient

30.1 !!!8220;If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the !!!8216;parking contract!!!8217; with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.!!!8221;

In reference to paragraph 21.1, please see the attached photograph to show that there are clearly no signs at the entrance of the car park, that !!!8220;explain that ANPR is in use at the location and the purpose for which it is being used!!!8221;. In fact there are no signs at the entrance that even hint that camera technology is in use, giving no reasonable chance to make an informed decision about entering or parking there.

In reference to paragraph 30.1, it would be assumed by Britannia Parkings summary of the situation, that, in their opinion, this would constitute as !!!8216;parking without permission!!!8217;. In this case, it has been proven by photographic evidence, that no such chance to read the terms and conditions were provided and it is also noted that no reasonable grace period was granted.

In addition, Britannia Parking signs state:

i) 'by parking, waiting, or otherwise remaining within this car park you enter into a contract with the private operator and agree to comply with the parking contract'.

ii) !!!8220;by entering this private car park you consent for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the Parking Contract; to the capturing of the vehicle and registration by cameras and to processing of the data, together with any data provided by the payment or permit systems, to check the compliance, with the parking contract, and to the processing of the data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA."

In reference to both Britannia signage quotes above:

i) A driver would have no choice but to enter the car park and then exit the vehicle to locate and read signage that isn't provided at the entrance. This forces the driver into a contract with Britannia Parking with no warning or choice.

ii) As there are no warning or information signs at the entrance of the car park, as shown in the photographs provided, a driver would ave to enter the car park before realising and finding the signage
with terms and conditions on. This forces the driver into agreeing to data collection, sharing and processing, also with no warning or choice.


Clearly, no such "reasonable, consistent and transparent manner" declaration or notification, has been made made in this case. Furthermore by failing to adhere to the regulations, Britannia Parking have ensured it is not possible to enter and leave the car park, without taking time to find and read terms that are not clearly on display and falling foul of unwarranted parking charges.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR signage requirements.




4. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraphs 20.5a & 31.1. Date and Time Stamps.

The photographs of the vehicle in question, provided by Britannia Parking, includes no timestamps or dates, as evidence of the alleged parking offence. I would request that proof of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park are provided, along with the appropriate timestamps and date markings on the photographs, as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

20.5 When issuing a parking charge notice 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 digitally altered.

31.1 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
digitally altered.

No date or timestamps were used, as shown, despite asking for this to be provided in my initial appeal to Britannia Parking.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice by not providing required evidence.




5. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.2. Terms & Conditions / Entrance signs.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

"18.2 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."

Furthermore, the postal parking charge notice received, states that 'the signage displayed at the entrance to and through the car park, states that this car park is private land operated by Britannia Parking.

There were no informational signs at the entrance of the car park, informing drivers of the required information. Instead there was a plain 'P' sign and an arrow, giving no indication of it being
a private, paid car park. This makes the parking charge notice factually incorrect, as well as going against BPA guidelines.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the BPA Code of Practice by not providing the required information at the car park entrance.




6. Breach of POFA 2012, paragraph 9, section (2a). Notice to Keeper Required Details.

The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 states, (in relation to the Notice to Keeper):

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 - (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

The parking charge notice received from Britannia Parking, refers to an entrance and exit time to the car park in question. It does not, as required by the POFA section above, state the
'period of parking to which the notice relates'. The times listed, can in no way be assumed to be a period of parking as it would have to include the time to enter the car park, locate and read the
parking signs, decide whether to stay or not and then leave again. At a total of 12 minutes, this would leave very little time to park as alleged.

In addition to this, the images of the vehicle provided by Britannia Parking clearly show close up shots of a vehicle with its brake lights on and not parked. There are no identifying
features, including date and timestamps, to show in any way that this is parked on the land mentioned. This does not meet the required information for a valid 'Notice to Keeper'.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the POFA 2012 Notice to Keeper requirements.




7. Breach of POFA 2012, paragraph 9, sections (5-6). Notice delivery Period.

The Protection of Freedom Act 2012, states (in relation to the delivery of the Notice to Keeper):

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so !!!8220;given!!!8221; for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose !!!8220;working day!!!8221; means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The alleged offence took place on February 1st 2018. The notice to keeper, was not received until the 16th February.

In this respect, I believe Britannia Parking to be in breach of the POFA 2012 section above, as it was received after the required time period.


I would respectfully ask that this charge is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.

(photos to be included)

nosferatu1001

Do not use the word "offence"
Alleged breach.

Swan1305

Thanks, I'll change that. Other than that, does it read ok?

Coupon-mad

You don't need any of this at all because you are not sending a letter, this is an appeal you upload online to POPLA, choosing 'OTHER' and attaching it:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration xxx, in regard to a parking charge notice, received by Britannia Parking. The driver has not been named, for his/her
protection. The POPLA validation code for this case is xxxx.

This alleged offence occurred on the 1st February 2018 and a notice to keeper was issued by Britannia Parking on 14th February. It was received on the 16th February.
An online appeal was submitted by email the same day and a reply, dated 16th March (and received a few days later), refused the appeal.

And I would change the heading of this one:

1. Breach of the BPA Code of practice, paragraph 18.3. Incorrect signage.

to:

1. No contract offered or capable of being 'agreed' to pay the unadvertised sum of £85.

Swan1305

Thank you - will alter and upload it now and keep my fingers crossed.