Britannia Parking - Appeal Rejected

IamDan

Looking through a number of threads this is something I have started to put together:




Dear POPLA Assessor,

• The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper and the PCN was issued to the driver. Britannia Parking has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper and that PoFA was followed correctly. No notice to keeper was ever served and this is necessary if registered keeper is being pursued. The only way Britannia Parking can transfer liability from driver to registered keeper is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012.
• Britannia Parking has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN.
• Regarding landowner points please note that address, signatures, names & company names have been blanked out. Only details evident are those of the ‘date’ the document has been signed and ‘position of Chairman’ of the person who has signed the documentation. No details are evident that relate to the landowner. This is an altered contract with no end date and no map detailing the area covered by the contract.
• Regarding signage the appellant requests that the document ‘dex daytime pictures February 2018’ be disallowed. The sign PRESENTED is large, bold and readable. The real signs are small and writing in small print is not readable. The sign on the entrance is above the building (a few meters of ground level) and DRIVER would have to look up away from the road to see which is the same with the pictures of other signs which have been presented. This conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B: The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead.

IamDan

Thanks for the comments so far, I have amended to:




Dear POPLA Assessor,

• The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper and the PCN was issued to the driver. Britannia Parking has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper and that PoFA was followed correctly. No notice to keeper was ever served and this is necessary if registered keeper is being pursued. The only way Britannia Parking can transfer liability from driver to registered keeper is by using the provisions of the PoFA 2012.
• Britannia Parking has failed to demonstrate who the driver was and therefore who is liable for the PCN.
• Regarding landowner points please note that address, signatures, names & company names have been blanked out. Only details evident are those of the ‘date’ the document has been signed and ‘position of Chairman’ of the person who has signed the documentation. No details are evident that relate to the landowner. This is an altered contract with no end date and no map detailing the area covered by the contract.
• Regarding signage the appellant requests that the document ‘dex daytime pictures February 2018’ be disallowed. The sign PRESENTED is large, bold and readable. The real signs are small and writing in small print is not readable. The sign on the entrance is above the building (a few meters of ground level) and DRIVER would have to look up away from the road to see which is the same with the pictures of other signs which have been presented. This conflicts with BPA CoP S18 para 2, Appendix B: The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers, without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
• They state in the letter dated 30/07/2018 that ‘with regards to the comments made on the Watchdog, that this was in relation to ANPR camera technology, which is not relevant in your case as your Parking Charge Notice was issued at a patrolled site by a car park attendant’. However, in their statement made on the 28/08/2018 they state that 'This car park uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The car park is not manned’. This shows that Britannia Parking are not aware of which car park they are discussing as the statements they have made contradict each other.

IamDan

I am also thinking about adding this point:


Britannia Parking have also provided ‘Machine Data’ which shows tickets purchased via coins, however, the carpark operates a mobile app payment facility ‘paybyphone’. Details of searches of the car registration through this app have not been provided.


As the DRIVER did purchase a ticket on the day in question but as previously stated they incorrectly selected the wrong location number.

Umkomaas

You've only 2,000 characters (not words) available to use so choose your comments carefully (most important ones) and keep them pithy.

waamo

Keep it shorter. You are very limited in characters. The company have only provided data as to tickets purchased by coins not data from app payments. They have not demonstrated an app payment wasn't made.

Coupon-mad

Remove things that are waffly, like the first bit here:

[STRIKE]The amount requested on the PCN is not relevant/ correct as the appellant is the registered keeper and the PCN was issued to the driver. Britannia Parking has no evidence that they transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper and that PoFA was followed correctly.[/STRIKE] No notice to keeper was ever served

Cut to the chase - ''no NTK was ever served'' being the first words, herald a win in their own right.

IamDan

Thank you all for your comments.


I have now submitted my comments and will await the outcome.

IamDan

Hi again,


Thank you for all your help so far.


Unfortunately, today I received confirmation that my POPLA appeal had been rejected. Looking through the response I don't believe that they have answered all the points I have raised as they really concentrated on adequate signage and the fact that they have land owner authority.


I'm wondering now if that is the end of the process?


Thanks

LoneStarState

Post up the POPLA assessor's decision.


This will help us to determine whether the assessor actually considered your points at all (especially if Britannia didn't even serve an NTK). Don't forget to paragraph and space out the text as their decisions are just a wall of text. Help us to help you etc.


There have been a lot of recent muck ups by POPLA when adjudicating having not considered appellant points properly or not picking up on operators not addressing your points in their evidence packs.

beamerguy

IamDan wrote: »

Hi again,


Thank you for all your help so far.


Unfortunately, today I received confirmation that my POPLA appeal had been rejected. Looking through the response I don't believe that they have answered all the points I have raised as they really concentrated on adequate signage and the fact that they have land owner authority.


I'm wondering now if that is the end of the process?


Thanks

It is sad to say that POPLA has now become a complete
white elephant. Bad assessors, lack of training etc.
Even BBC Watchdog pointed out their errors.
This is a BPA set up who has also become a white elephant

POPLA is not the end, if it goes to court, you will get a real
judge who will listen where POPLA did not

Next will be retard debt collectors (who are approved
scammers of the BPA), TELLING YOU LIES and talking
utter rubbish which you ignore

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5859454/debt-collectors-drp-zzps-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know&highlight=debt+collectors+drp

If you get a letter before court then come back here.

The BPA must try much harder to get themselves
out of the gutter