Britannia PCN for a full carpark - car was never parked!

theduchess2018

Thank you, I was looking in the wrong place for edit - apologies.


The rental company sent a copy of the PCN and their invoice for processing it on the 28/8. On the phone the next day they advised that BP would send their copy imminently, which they did - it arrived either later that day or the following day.


So, the driver knew nothing at all of this fine until the end of August, so the 21 days has not yet elapsed, surely?

Quentin

Your OP needs more editing to remove details of who was driving. Use the third party as in "the driver" did this....and "the keeper" did that....

Coupon-mad

the driver knew nothing at all of this fine until the end of August, so the 21 days has not yet elapsed, surely?

Yes. Why the question mark?

I already said we agree, and exactly what to do about it.

You are right, so complain to Steve Clark who WILL investigate. Tell him we've seen a pattern on this forum of more than one case of Britannia doing this, including at least one referred to him before in recent weeks.

Ask what Britannia are doing about it, given it is a failure of data processing (''untimely and inaccurate'' under the GDPR, for starters, and a breach of the BPA CoP because the CoP says that a PPC must allow recipients of a Notice to appeal).

Make sure you include a URL to this thread so he can read it after you've edited it...

theduchess2018

Appeal has been rejected. The letter is so annoying - it is like they didn't couldn't read it! It was stated clearly that the car was never parked and the time spent in there was queueing. However, the rejection letter refers to 'leaving the car' (it was never left) and talks about (and includes photos of) signs stating it's a pay and display carpark. The existence of these was never in dispute; what is in dispute is that there were no signs stating that cameras were in operation, meaning that it was a risk entering if unsure of getting a space. The carpark should also have been displaying a 'full' sign.

The appeal letter also stated that the driver found an alternative space to park in nearby shortly after leaving and included a screenshot of payment made by phone for that space. The rejection letter states: 'Please be aware from the evidence provided that a Paybyphone ticket for the location code XXXX was purchased. However the code for 'Full rip-off carpark' is XXXX, therefore you have not paid for this carpark.' This is infuriating as it's like they have totally ignored what was written and just responded to things they can counter. Why would someone park in one place and fail to pay, then go back and move the car to another place nearby and pay?? The other annoyance is it's almost certain they own both carparks, so will profit twice from this incident.

Having looked on POPLA, it seems none of the options match what has happened, so any advice as to what to select would be most appreciated. Another worry is that there is no evidence of the queueing, but nothing can now be done about that...

Umkomaas

What did Steve Clark have to say?

theduchess2018

Steve was very helpful in terms of ensuring the Britannia stuck to the appeals window - I contacted him because they closed it early. However, he did not comment on the appeal itself.

theduchess2018

I have been looking into this further and have a couple of more specific questions:


1. The point about not admitting to being the driver. A point of evidence against this charge will be that parking was paid for nearby just after leaving the full carpark, and that will take the form of phone and bank records, thereby revealing the identity of the driver. Does that matter - is it more important to show that evidence? The rejection letter states that if the driver is not known they have the right to recover the full amount from the keeper, and they quote The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Section 4.


2. How much of a problem is it that the driver has no evidence of the queue?

Quentin

The payment confirmation doesn't confirm the identity of the driver (just whoever paid)

Fruitcake

As above. An occupant of the car paid, but in my opinion it is irrelevant what happened after the incident that Britannia are alleging.

theduchess2018

As this matter has now progressed further I am looking for a little more advice.


A few months ago I was contacted by BWlegal. Following advice on the Newbie thread I sent an SAR request to Britannia and received the details from them and used the template to contact BWlegal asking them to put the matter on hold. As predicted on the thread this was refused.


Then in April I received a letter entitled Letter of Claim which requests payment, including the £60 I have seen mentioned on other threads and says court action will ensue if payment not received by 10/5/19. Several forms are included, one about my income which I understand from other threads I don't have to fill in, but I'm unclear as to which of the many other boxes I should tick. I assume it's the one saying 'I dispute the debt' but then it asks me to provide reasons. Do I repeat the reasons given at my appeal stage (which failed) or is this where I need to put the defence that will be used in court if it gets that far? It also says I can enclose documents - again, would these be the same as any I have already provided earlier on in the process or are these not relevant here? The examples given are appointments for debt advice letters, but that's not relevant to me.


Sorry if these are silly questions. I've looked at other threads but I'm still not entirely sure what I should be doing at this point. Thanks.