POPLA rejected my appeal

eddie77

This was with Britannia Parking.

The refusal from POPLA is below. My questions are, if Britannia pursue this with debt collection letters and then a county court claim, would I have grounds to defend myself on the basis that my 22mins parking when the car park was almost empty, does not equate their loss of earnings? (I never put this is in my POPLA appeal as didnt think of it at the time).

I will update this thread if and when I hear from Brittannia post POPLA refusla.

POPLA comments:

Decision: Refused
Assessor summary of operator case:
The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of assessor case:
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as:
• He is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
• A compliant notice to keeper was never served.
• No keeper liability can apply.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
• No evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor summary of reasons:

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.
When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park.
The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “RESTRICTIONS AND CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIIMES TO ALL VEHICLES. Please enter the FULL and correct vehicle registration into the payment machine when paying the tariff. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit.”
The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 18:19pm and exited the site at 18:41pm.
The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of 22 minutes.
I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however the onus is on the appellant to ensure a valid payment is made for duration of stay. As the driver has failed to do this, they have breached the terms and conditions of the site.
The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that no parking was purchased on the date of the event.
I note the appellant’s comments and their reason for parking at the site in question. However, in their appeal the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their submission. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site.
Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.
The operator has provided a valid contract which gives authority to the parking operator to carry out all the aspects of the car park management for the site.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator.
By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Fruitcake

You are in ignore mode from now on unless you get real court papers.

The fact the car park was nearly empty and they suffered no loss is irrelevant. This argument has not been valid since the Beavis case several years ago.

If you get a MCOL or LBA/LBC then come back to this thread for more help.

Read the NEWBIES to understand how this unregulated scam works, especially Post 4 in your case as it explains what to do if you get debt crawler letters.

eddie77

Thanks Fruitcake, will update as soon if/when I hear more and will read the posts you refer to.

fisherjim

These are your current odds of Britannia taking court action:


http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Britannia_Parking_Group.html

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 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 House of Commons recently

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

eddie77

Wow, 7 out of 77,738 - hopefully I wont become number 8.

eddie77

Ok so I got my first letter from bw legal dated 28 November 2018. Britannia Parking have handed over to them.

I have 16 days from 28 Nov to pay the fine or they may take up county court proceedings.

The balance has gone up from £100 to £160 due to legal fees.

I have never claimed to be the driver.

No ticket was purchased to park - the vehicle was on the private land for just over 30mins, the 10mins grace period had expired. Apparently there was the option to pay within 24 hours but that was never clear.

Any advice/pointers as to my next move greatly appreciated.

KeithP

Looks to me to be a debt collectors letter.

Who does this recent letter suggest you pay?

eddie77

BW Legal are acting on behalf of Britannia Parking and I need to pay BW Legal according to the letter.

KeithP

As they have only offered 16 days to respond, and as they use the word 'may' when threatening court action, I would suggest that this is BWL acting as debt collectors.

In my opinion, you should ignore that letter.
Other opinions are available.

beamerguy

eddie77 wrote: »

I have 16 days from 28 Nov to pay the fine or they may take up county court proceedings.

The balance has gone up from £100 to £160 due to legal fees.

A real LBA must give you 30 days to rebut, which you can.
It must also prove their claim.

Now, here is the joke about BWLegal, they keep adding £60 and for you they say it's legal fees, others they say it's admin, or it's contractual ...... they don't have a clue themselves.

The simple fact about this scam is it's a fake add-on from debt collectors which is not allowed. SO, you do not owe £160, it's just BWLegal trying to extort money from you.

If they continue with this rubbish, then a judge should know this

BWLEGAL ADD ON A FAKE £60 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, BWLegal, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

If you read this thread ..
BWLegal - the list of failures growing
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664

BWLegal kept prattling on about Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films .... this forum told them what rubbish they were spouting and it took losses in court until the penny dropped

The £60 wheeze is an attempt of extortion

WAIT FOR A LEGAL LBA and then you will get the help you want on here.
Remember they must give you 30 days by law