Britannia Parking - POPLA code received

shotgun45

Hi

I'm new to this. In the past I have just ignored the very few parking fines I've had.

I did this for my girlfriend. We stayed in the Portswood Centre car park in Southampton. it was dark and I couldn't see anything around that said it was 24 hour controlled. I did the first stage of appeal from the Newbies thread and have the following back:

"Re: Parking Charge Notice Number (Vehicle: XXXX)
Site: Southampton - Portswood Centre
Issue date: 22/01/2018
Thank you for your appeal received on 25/01/2018 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice.
We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been
considered in conjunction with the photographs and any evidence provided. Our records show that the
notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the
Car Park.
Your POPLA verification code is
Please be aware that this site is an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) controlled car park. A
camera photographs your entry and exit and times this against the 2 hour maximum stay allocated to
this car park.
We are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operator
Scheme, the BPA Code of Practice, at all times. Section 13 !!!8211; Grace Periods, details that we must give
the driver a reasonable period of time to read the terms and conditions on the signage and to leave the
car park after the parking contract has expired. We have a 10 minute grace period at this car park. After
2 hours of parking, if the driver has not left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has
been reached, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued for breaching the terms and conditions of the car
park.
An online copy the Code of Practice can be found by visiting:

See attached photographs of the signage displayed at this car park and the photographs we have of
your vehicle.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
You now have a number of options from which to choose:-
1 Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate for a further 14 days.Please note that after this
time the discounted rate will no longer apply and the full Parking Charge Notice amount will then be due
within 14 days.
2 If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery
procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.
3 Make an appeal to POPLA !!!8211; The Independent Appeals Service. Please note that if you wish to
appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the Parking Charge Notice at the discounted rate, and
should POPLA!!!8217;s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount. If you opt to
pay the Parking Charge Notice you will be unable to appeal to POPLA.
The POPLA service is only available in England and Wales.
You must submit an appeal to POPLA within 28 days from the date of this outcome letter, by submitting
an online case at Your POPLA verification code i
By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal.
However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.!!!8217;
How to Pay:
Internet: Visit and follow the onscreen instructions. Please have your parking
charge Notice number and payment card details ready.
By Phone: Call 0345 5 555888 option 2.
By Post: Make your cheque or postal order payable to Britannia Parking"

There's also blurry pictures of the car and pictures of the signs in broad daylight. Tiny writing and really high up.

This thread is from the same car park. Is their defence good enough to send over on POPLA?
hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5620863

Please help, I'm a little confused but think the fine is unfair! Any help greatly appreciated.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

waamo

Remove that POPLA code urgently.

shotgun45

Removed, didn't realise I'd left it in

shotgun45

In my appeal do I make any additional note regarding it being dark? The one used before seems to fit our circumstances but wondering if adding more to it would help?

waamo

Lack of illumination is always a good appeal point if you parked at night. Many ppc's have photos of their signs that are taken in the day and fail to show adequate illumination at night.

Castle

waamo wrote: »

Lack of illumination is always a good appeal point if you parked at night. Many ppc's have photos of their signs that are taken in the day and fail to show adequate illumination at night.

A successful appeal at POPLA on "unlit signage" from yesterday:- https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5756275

shotgun45

So I choose the bit that says The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed and then they ask two questions about why I believe this to be. Do I have to upload all the previous letters and my initial appeal to Britannia? Had it not been dark and the signs up high we would not have overstayed past the time allowed (as this is giving me a headache). Do I need to do the appeal in a certain way or can I just say it was dark and the signs are too high? I have the photos of the signs sent by britannia parking and of the car and they make it obvious that it was dark when we turned up and the signs were taken in the middle of the day. Not made of illuminous material and tiny writing. I don't want to mess this up...

nosferatu1001

No, you select "other"

Have you gone through NEWBIES thread, and taken appeal points from there?

You need to lok at FULL POPLA appeals. Dont just make it up as you go along.

shotgun45

I'm looking at them now (I initially missed the POPLA bit) but I'm getting so confused, there's loads of stuff regarding inadequate signage and landowners etc. Do I just pick the ones that apply and copy and paste into a pdf and upload? Just make it needlessly wordy and long? That one that i initially tried to link to is the exact car park. I want to add about lighting but can I just take it from that appeal about inadeqaute illumination of the signs?

shotgun45

I'm thinking this. It's mostly copy and pasted but assume it's all relevant to my circumstances. Do ai slo upload the thing from Britannia with the pictures?

Appeal re POPLA code: !!!8211; v Britannia Parking Group Ltd

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.


1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)!!!8212; (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further !!!8216;If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.!!!8217;
It is my understanding that for an operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The Driver of the vehicle has not been identified (as confirmed in the operator!!!8217;s rejection of my appeal, dated xxth of xxxxx 2017) and the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012 (no windscreen ticket was issued), specifically the following passage:

!!!8220;2) The notice must !!!8211; f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given !!!8211; (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;!!!8221;

The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number xxxxxxx, dated xx xxxxx of 2017) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice which confirms that such text is absent. The only instruction in this regard is as follows:

!!!8220;Please be advised that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. As we do not know the drivers name or current address, and if you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them for payment.!!!8221;

Evidently, the operator has withheld from me (as the registered keeper) the required details of my liabilities in the event that the driver is not identified. This might be an omission on the part of the operator or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but regardless, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with PoFA 2012 (section 9).
As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly elaborated.

2) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

The signs were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of !!!8216;plain intelligible language!!!8217;, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

68 Requirement for transparency (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park.



In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
!!!8226; The operator has provided photographic evidence of all signage throughout the site. These photographs are shown in daylight only and so are not representative of the conditions prevalent at the time of the alleged incident, and should be disregarded.
!!!8226; The operator has not stated if and where the vehicle was parked, only that the vehicle entered and left the car park. There is no evidence of what signage might be visible to the driver from their point of view, in the same lighting conditions, and thus no evidence that a contract for parking was accepted

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately.
For this appeal, I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself. I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


3) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement



Yours faithfully,



(Registered keeper of vehicle)