Britannia Parking NTK - POPLA appeal help

pmer81

Hello,

Firstly, I would like to thank all the contributors here for the wealth of knowledge available for free re parking fines - I have been lurking since receiving the NTK and found it very helpful!

I was issued a postal NTK from Britannia Parking ~21 days after the alleged parking incident.

The driver was picking somebody up from a Travelodge hotel, which I have discovered upon further research, has signs up indicating that a ticket is required for 30 minutes free parking. The driver was not aware the car park was using ANPR and did not obtain a free 30 minute ticket.

The driver did not "Park" the car, but was waiting in the car park for the person staying in the hotel to exit.

Using the timestamps shown on the NTK, I have calculated that the driver was waiting in the car park for ~15 minutes.

The NTK does not seem to mention POFA or about being able to recover from keeper, the closest thing in the NTK I can see to this is the following text, which I believe is not relevant:

"Parking Charge amount due £100.00
Payment to be made within 28 days of issue.
This parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days of the date of issue.
After 29 days the full parking charge amount is due"

After researching the signs in this car park, they seem to be unusually clear - nothing like other signs I have seen posted on this forum, with the instructions and potential fine in large lettering so I do not believe I can appeal on this point.

I have scanned in all pages of the NTK to upload to POPLA as evidence.

I have appealed as the keeper to Britannia Parking, with the standard template in the newbies thread.

This has, of course, been rejected and I have been given a POPLA code.

With the above in mind, I would be grateful if anyone experienced could look over my draft appeal and suggest anything to add/remove? Please assume any missing dates are correct, these will triple checked before submitting to POPLA.





Dear POPLA,


On the XXXXXXX Britannia Parking issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for the reason “Failed to Obtain a Valid 30 Minute Free Ticket or Purchase a Valid Ticket”!

As the registered keeper, I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
1) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the operator or the landowner
3) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

1) The Notice to Keeper does not comply with sub-paragraph 9 (2 & 5).

To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
• The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Britannia Parking has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).


The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on XXXXXXX. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the NTK is XXXXXXX and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on XXXXXXX (i.e. outside of the relevant period).


The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, Britannia Parking has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:

The notice must be given by—
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;

Upon reviewing the NTK, Britannia Parking have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f). The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation.!




2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner

The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.!

In this case Britannia Parking has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge was arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that Britannia Parking charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), and that the claimed £100, with 40% discount for prompt payment, is the maximum penalty allowed without prior justification to the BPA (section 19.5 & 19.6, BPA Code of Practice), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that Britannia Parking is exploiting section 19 of the BPA code of practice.Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:

19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract

Based on the information offered it would suggest that the figure being demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss earning due to the fact that operational costs, such as the installing and the maintenance of equipment should not be included.




3) Britannia Parking lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

It is suggested that Britannia Parking does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Britannia Parking be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

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


In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Britannia Parking is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Britannia Parking.

Umkomaas

Have you used the template POPLA appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3? They are already written for you to copy and paste (with perhaps a bit of tweaking to match your case).

The non-PoFA NtK is your slam dunk at POPLA, Follow that with the sticky's template copy and paste 'The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. Then you need a 'Signage' and 'Landowner Authority' appeal points (from the sticky) as a minimum.

GPEOL is dead in the water since Beavis over 2 years ago, so ditch your appeal point in its entirety.

So please do a re-draft and let us have a look at it.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner

You what?

DELETE THAT IMMEDIATELY. Where on earth did you dredge that from, 2015 or earlier?

Replace #2 with the template about the appellant not being shown to be the person liable.

And add as #4, the usual point about signage,...the very long template.

And add as #5, the new one about ANPR ICO issues (search the forum).