Britania Parking PCN - inappropriate display parking ticket ?

Alexa777

Hi Everyone,

First of all I want to say thanks to all of you who contributed valuable information.
I have read the newbies thread but no info particular or I could refer for this case.

I am here to ask what to write for the pending comments of my POPLA appeal.
This is the last opportunity in this appeal.

A PCN landed on windscreen when the driver parked at Southampton West Quay Retail car park while a valid parking ticket is obtained.
However, the ticket was placed behind the drivers window instead of the dashboard.
The reason is a float ticket is very likely to fall off from the dashboard when the door shuts.

*There is a line on the ticket "Display clearly on dashboard this side up"*

Clearly stated where was the ticket displayed when appeal with Britania and no surprise they declined the claim and an appeal submitted to POPLA with a photo of the ticket.

Britania also uploaded their evidence with photos of the car that the ticket was not on the dashboard and other regulations.

May I ask what to write in the comments please ?

I have outlined three points in the initial POPLA claim as below but still been asked to provide comments on the operators evidence.

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.

Claimed as keeper in Britania appeal.
Claimed as keeper in POPLA appeal.

Much appreciate any help in advance !

My comments added below, if no more advice received, this will be submitted.

1. Britannia provided no evidence that they correctly transferred liability from the driver to the registered keeper nor that PoFA was followed correctly.
2. Britannia failed to provide NTK as no NTK ever received by the keeper nor in their evidence pack. Britannia didn!!!8217;t challenge this in my appeal then they are deemed to agree with this point.
3. Britannia is drawing assumptions as to the identity of the driver in this evidence pack, however this is has never established and they have no evidence as to who was driving.
4. Britannia failed to provide evidence of Landowner Authority. Britannia didn!!!8217;t challenge this in my appeal then they are deemed to agree with this point.
5. Britannia as a member of BPA failed to adhere to the CoP B20.5b quote !!!8220;In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows!!!8221;. The photos show the attendant failed to check all the side windows.
6. Signage !!!8211; The significant signage all over the car park only written !!!8220;Pay & Display!!!8221; without specify where to display.
- Britannia failed BPA CoP B18.3 quote !!!8220;Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm!!!8221;. The Conditions of use does not meet the CoP requirements of the text size.
- According to Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking, the driver is not bound by the terms printed on the ticket if they differ from the notice, because the ticket comes too late. This is also supported by Olley v. Maryborough Court !!!8221;The ticket is no more than a voucher or receipt for the money that has been paid on terms which have been offered and accepted before the ticket is issued". Hence the additional requirements written on the parking ticket is not legally binding.
7. The driver had obtained and displayed as per the signage contract, there was no intention to defraud the Britannia.

Le_Kirk

Have you read the Newbie sticky post? If not go there now, using this link to find out all about POPLA. You can also search the forum for RECENT successful POPLA appeals and use the points made in that/those appeal(s).


ETA Sorry, misread your post, didn't see you had a POPLA appeal rejected. You could still search for POPLA rebuttals.

Redx

your rebuttal comments must be based on their evidence pack and show where their errors or omissions are, based on what they have stated

the appeal should have been based on legal points and your rebuttal by comments are about where they have failed on landowner contract , signage etc, not "what happened on the day"

see this thread and its links to see what rebuttals look like

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5833054/advice-please-regarding-parking-charge-notice-issued-by-care-parking-at-stretford-tram-station

especially see page 4 , post #69


and remember the comments are limited to 2000 characters (not words) and you cannot introduce any NEW evidence or appeal points

Quentin

Throughout here the advice is never to reveal the driver.


Hopefully you haven't done so in your initial appeal


You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving


If you have used your real name as your board name you need to ask MSE to change it to something completely anonymous


The ppcs monitor this orum and can use your posts against you


You cannot add to your appeal now, but you can rebut the evidence from the ppc


See #3 in the newbies faq thread for advice on popla appeals procedure

beamerguy

I have stated where was the ticket displayed when appeal with Britania and no surprise they declined my claim and I submitted an appeal to POPLA with a photo of the ticket.

So, you have sent your appeal to POPLA. ?

Let's see what they say, logic should prevail but nowadays
with POPLA we are never sure if a real assessor is working
or the tea boy.

Floating tickets are common and deemed very trivial by
the courts especially as you have proof you paid and it
seems Britannia are not prepared to mitigate but rather
penalise you

Alexa777

@beamerguy
Sorry I cant quote your post as I am too new...

Yes, Britania has provided their evidence: photos of the car, photos of the ticket machine and the cluases on the ticket machine, their statement, the original PCN, the rejection letter etc.

And now POPLA is asking me to add my final comments.

So I guess I need to write something helpful to the case.

Thanks.

Alexa777

@Redx

Thanks for the useful info.
I have stated the legal points in my initial POPLA claim as below:
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.

But POPLA is still asking me to add further comments after Britania uploaded their evidence.

What additional points I could provide please ?
*I have read few previous posts with comprehensive legal points but only discovered above three to be used in this case.*

KeithP

Alexa777 wrote: »

What additional points I could provide please ?

You don't add 'additional points'.

You need to go through the PPC's evidence with a fine toothed comb looking for all the mistakes they have made.

In the past we have seen signs from a car park over 100 miles from the alleged transgression.

Highlight any of your appeal points that they have failed to challenge.
If they have failed to challenge any of your appeal points then they are deemed to agree with your point.
Make that clear to PoPLA.

You must challenge their evidence or you will lose the appeal, and you only have seven days to do it.

Get cracking.

Redx

as I stated earlier, you go through their evidence pack and note any BPA CoP failures they have admitted too, any landowner contract errors , omissions and redactions, POFA falures like NTK failures , signage failures on their part, is it the correct car park with their correct signage etc

if you check the link I gave you it gives links to other rebuttals, so find any and all errors in their evidence pack

if you have identified 3 errors in their pack then those are your 3 starting points , identify as many as you can find, but ensure your rebuttal fits the 2000 character limit in the portal

Alexa777

@Quentin
Thanks for your reply.
In the Britannia's evidence letter, I noticed below:

"As the PCN was appealed before a Notice to Keeper had been issued, the only person as ware of the parking charge at this time would be the driver. We have therefore identified the appellant to be the driver."

Is this a valid assumption ?

Redx

Alexa777 wrote: »

@Quentin
Thanks for your reply.
In the Britannia's evidence letter, I noticed below:

"As the PCN was appealed before a Notice to Keeper had been issued, the only person as ware of the parking charge at this time would be the driver. We have therefore identified the appellant to be the driver."

Is this a valid assumption ?

no its not , so say so and also state that no NTK was ever served, especially if it is missing from their evidence pack or if they have stated that they never sent one to the KEEPER

they seem to think they do not have to send one, but in fact they DO have to send one , regardless , because a driver could hand the windscreen pcn to the keeper, then a keeper appeals, which is what happened

it is errors like that that you are looking for in their pack


ps:- POPLA are asking you for comments about the PPC evidence pack, they are not asking you for additional appeal points , those were in your initial popla appeal and you are not allowed to add "additional appeal points" at this stage