Brittania POPLA Appeal

archie2008

Hi

I'm looking for advice please! Received a PCN / NTK through the post from Britannia parking with the contravention as 'Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment'.

No ticket placed on car, the postal PCN just shows ANPR images of the car entering and exiting the car park.

Appealed to Britannia (not disclosing the driver) on the grounds that there is no evidence that a valid ticket wasn't purchased. I do not have the ticket, but a ticket was purchased.

Britannia rejected supplying a POPLA code, stating 'The PCN was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired' (still no proof other that the above ANPR entry/exit images) They also go on to highlight their 10 minute grace period. They also sent images of signage stating ANPR is used.

Does anyone know what reason should be given on the POPLA site for appealing the charge?

The options are:
- My vehicle was stolen
- I was not improperly parked
- The amount on the PCN is Not correct
- I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
- Other

Here's my POPLA appeal, advice most welcome before submitting.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX and am appealing a parking charge from Britannia Parking.

On the XXXX, Britannia Parking issued a parking charge notice via post.

The notice states that the above vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system at entering and exiting XXXX car park on XXXXX.

As the keeper of the vehicle that is related to this PCN, I wish to appeal the purported 'expiration of pay and display ticket' that Britannia Parking has issued against said Vehicle.

I believe that the parking charge should be cancelled, due to the facts explained in the below text.

1) There is no evidence provided by the operator that a contravention occurred at all.

There are no images of a dashboard ticket, or indeed ANY proof supplied, that shows the expiry time of a pay & display ticket or that a purchased ticket did not cover the time between entry and exit.

Two ANPR photos of the front of the vehicle and a close up of the number plate are NOT sufficient evidence to show that a valid ticket wasn't purchased.

I believe that this charge was not properly given because it breaches the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR, which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is ‘appropriate’ before issuing a PCN. I therefore challenge the operator to provide accurate evidence that the ticket had expired.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.

The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

3) Britannia has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence.

I require a copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.

I do not believe that the contract allows Britannia to charge paying visitors £100 for 'the expiration of a parking ticket'.

It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.

Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance:

“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.''

The operator is put to strict proof of all aspects mentioned above.

KeithP

Does anyone know what reason should be given on the POPLA site for appealing the charge?

The options are:
- My vehicle was stolen
- I was not improperly parked
- The amount on the PCN is Not correct
- I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.
- Other

Yes, you choose other.

This is clearly spelt out in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Coupon-mad

I do not have the ticket, but a ticket was purchased.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/team-blog/2017/05/throwing-pay-display-ticket-away-use-cost-100/

Always keep them for 2 months, just in case of receiving a scam PCN like this.

Does anyone know what reason should be given on the POPLA site for appealing the charge?

Yes, the one the NEWBIES thread tells you to choose! Post #3 of the sticky tells you - OTHER.

Where is your point about unclear signs? POPLA appeals always always put them to proof of their signs.

Where is your introductory point (written by you) telling POPLA that the driver did pay and display, and the PCN was not properly given because it says the contravention was 'Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment'.

Britannia have admitted they got the contravention wrong on the PCN, as the rejection letter alleges something different 'The PCN was issued to your vehicle because your pay and display ticket had expired' (still no proof, but even if there was, the PCN was not properly given and the contravention did not occur). The driver did not 'fail to validate stay or make a valid payment'.

archie2008

Sorry - I missed that point. Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

See my edit above. There is more.

Also where is your grace periods point? Search POPLA grace periods and copy.

archie2008

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

The rejection letter states

"All of our signs are approved by the British Parking Association (BPA) before they are displayed in the car parks. The BPA has approved the signage to be adequate within the car park. We are also audited yearly to ensure that signage is maintained and updated, in line with the BPA’s requirements. The signage clearly advises when a Parking Charge Notice will be issued and no ambiguous wording has been used. There is also a contact telephone number stated on the signage should you require further clarification on the terms and conditions.
We therefore consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and conditions of the parking contract that is on offer. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they have read the terms and conditions."

With this in mind, do I still have a case for using inadequate signage in the appeal?

KeithP

archie2008 wrote: »

With this in mind, do I still have a case for using inadequate signage in the appeal?

Not if you believe them.

Were you perhaps expecting them to say "all our signs are rubbish"?

Add the inadequate signage point to your appeal and make Britannia prove that the signs are good enough.

Britannia often give up when faced with a long PoPLA appeal.


Did they perhaps also say "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."?

With a statement like that, and using your logic, you don't stand a chance at PoPLA. :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

With this in mind, do I still have a case for using inadequate signage in the appeal?

LOL, you read their drivel and believed it! Of course you attack their signs!

archie2008

Right, I posted an appeal to POPLA considering all the points above (including the contradictory 'PCN was not properly given because it says the contravention was 'Failed to validate stay or make a valid payment' comment) and I have now received a reply with detailed evidence from Britannia.

They have shown an overstay in the carpark and provided logs from the machine. The overstay is over the '10 minute grace period'

They have also provided a contract with the landowner to show that there is a contractual agreement to manage the parking facilities. They also detail the fact that the signage is clear.

Any suggestions where I go from here?

KeithP

archie2008 wrote: »

Any suggestions where I go from here?

Yes, here's one:

Start by reading the section of post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread headed:

AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR POPLA APPEAL:

beamerguy

Reported as spam