Britania Parking PCN - Bournemouth

Jakeh_2

Castle pointed out on my thread that Schedule 4 of POFA Para 9(2)(i). requires that the "date sent" is to be stated on the NTK.

My BP NTK only refers to a "Date of issue" rather than the date the NTK was actually sent (as required by POFA), which I have used in my appeal. Might be of some use to you?

Good luck, will be watching this thread closely.

Umkomaas

Thank you, Castle, sounds promising then - would the popla adjudicator agree do you think?

Only if you can articulate in words on one syllable. They are far from legally trained/legally aware, so you need to do the work on this to firstly understand it yourself, then put it into writing for a (possibly) former nail polishing technician, former call centre employee, or budding soft !!!!!! author to be able to comprehend, then make a decision in your favour.

None of this is that easy!

Nonconform

Glad to have the support Jakeh, I think that ship has sailed as I only allowed to comment on the evidence presented by BP at this stage (according took the popla process)

Lol, Umkomaas, it doesn't surprise me. I'm just glad to be making this as difficult as possible for these crooks.

Nonconform

re-posting the link for the landowner agreement using:

https://issuu.com/nonconform99/docs/bournemouth_exeterrd_signedagreemen

Nonconform

Coupon-mad would you mind having a look at the response from Britannia to the POPLA appeal - would be grateful if you had any comments:

---

Dear Sir/Madame,

Please find enclose our detailed statement for Parking Charge Notice XXXXX. On <DAY> Xth Month 2018 vehicle XXXXXX entered Bournemouth – Exeter Park Road Car Park at XX:XXpm. This car park uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and is pay on entry-our signage advise of this. Please note this car park is a private land with restrictions apply to all vehicles at all times. There is no attendant on the site.

A transaction took place at XX:XXpm and a 2hours ticket was paid for – please see attached machine data. This would give the ticket an expiry time of XX:XXpm, the motorist did not leave the car park until XX:XXpm; ticket purchased did not cover their whole stay. The vehicle was observed for X hours and XX minutes in total.

Therefore, the system generated a Parking Charge Notice. Please see pictures of our signage attached, signage advises that £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to vehicles which fail to make a valid payment. Please see the pictures from this site which were taken in February and September 2018. Terms and conditions remain unchanged.

By remaining in the car park without valid ticket, the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the site. By remaining parked, the motorist was agreeing to conditions of the contract. It is ultimately the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they seek out and adhere to the terms and conditions displayed throughout the site.

Should you find yourself unable to operate our car parking machines or experience any difficulties on site, the signage clearly shows contact details for Britannia Parking which are accessible 24hrs. Please note, the motorist has not purchased additional ticket to cover their whole stay. We also offer a late payment option should an overstay happen, we allow up to 48 hours after the driver has left the car park to call to make a late payment or inform us of the situation should the driver contact us.

We are members of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operator
Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. Section 13 – Grace Periods, details that once the parking
contract has ended (ticket has expired), we must give the driver a reasonable period of time to leave
the car park. We have a 10 minute grace period at this car park. If the driver has not purchased
another ticket or left the car park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking
Charge Notice will be issued, for breaching the terms and conditions of the car park.

Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their
Approved Operator Scheme, the BPA Code of Practice, at all times. Our car parks are regularly audited
and our signage at this car park has been approved by the BPA. We meet all the requirements for our
signage as advised under section 18 and 19 for England and Wales (or Section 28 for Scotland) of the
BPA’s Code of Practice.

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. By leaving your vehicle
over the grace period without purchasing additional ticket you have broken the terms and conditions,
and consequently, we consider the Parking Charge Notice to be valid and correctly issued.

We have authorisation to act on behalf of the landowners, ensuring that the terms and conditions are
adhered to. We have full authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on their behalf. A copy of the
contract with the land owner has been enclosed to show that we have a contractual agreement to
manage the parking facilities, with all sensitive company information redacted.

This car park is private property, parking is operated subject to the terms and conditions within the
notice which is the signage (the ‘’Parking contract’’) and by parking, waiting or otherwise remaining
within the private car park the customers enter into a contract with the private operator and agree to
comply with the parking contract. They are authorised to park only if follow terms and conditions, if
fail to comply they accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the ‘’Parking Charge’’).
We uploaded the Parking Charge Notice data on XX/XX/2018 and requested DVLA Keeper details on
XX/XX/2018. Keeper details were added to the Parking Charge Notice on XX/XX/2018 and a letter was
then generated and posted on XX/XX/2018.

We received an appeal on XX/XX/2018 from the keeper of the vehicle. The appeal case was investigated to see why a Parking Charge Notice was generated. We responded on XX/XX/2018 advising it was issued correctly; A ticket purchased did not cover their whole stay;

The Parking Charge Notice is POFA compliant they are therefore liable for the Parking Charge Notice unless they wish to transfer liability to the driver at the time. This information has been provided in the appeal.

Nonconform

Hi, would it possible for someone to review my rebuttal comments (below), i am hoping to submit this tonight if there are no issues with it. Many thanks.

---

In the document titled “statement.pdf”, Britannia Parking claim that “The vehicle was observed for 2hours and 22minutes in total.” Yet, Britannia Parking have produced no evidence that the vehicle was parked in the car park for over two hours. There are no images of the car parked in a parking space and there are no images of the car stopped in a stationary position for any length of time. The images captured by Britannia Parking ANPR are of two separate events captured at the car park EXIT at different times of the day. Any vehicle manoeuvring around the EXIT of the car park will be captured by the ANPR. The operator's photos do not show an entrance image at all. A car shown facing the camera at the EXIT is just that, a car manoeuvring at the EXIT. Britannia Parking cannot substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Britannia Parking have not been able to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time, for the duration claimed and at the location stated in the NTK.

There was no contract entered into, nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

Further, the BPA Code of Practice states:

“You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.”

I refute the evidence provided in the Landowner’s Authority. There is no NO EVIDENCE OF LANDOWNER AUTHORITY – they have merely uploaded a copy of a letter (on Britannia Parking’s own headed paper), which claims to be proof of Landowner authority. The letter has blanked out sections and therefore I cannot see any proof that this letter has genuinely been signed by the Landowner which leave you to conclude that they have not proven the Landlord authority.
Further, they have not provided the following:

- an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner;

- The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights;

This is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.

Additionally, in BPA’s CoP under section 7 ‘Written authorisation of the landowner’, paragraph 7.3 it states:
7.3 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

Not all the above requirements have been met in the Landowner agreement contract submitted by the operator as evidence, therefore they have failed to meet these requirements.

In the document “Bournemouth_ExeterRd_signedAgreement redacted.pdf”, the supplier is stated on page 1 as Britannia Parking Services Ltd (Registered Company No: 08187238). However the NTK sent to the keeper of the vehicle was issued by Britannia Parking Group Ltd (No 08182990). This is evidenced by the document “SAR PCN 763725.pdf” which contains the issued NTK with company no: 08182990. The Landowner contract is with Britannia Parking Services Ltd (No 08187238) not Britannia Parking Group Ltd. Therefore, Britannia Parking Group Ltd (No 08182990) do not have authority by the landowner to issue PCNs/NTKs.

In the document “Bournemouth_ExeterRd_signedAgreement redacted.pdf” the "customer" name is redacted so there is no evidence that the redacted "customer" is the actual landowner. I cannot see any reference to landowner in the agreement, so there is no evidence that this is genuine. It is not possible to see any details of the Landowner giving authority for issuing parking charges as the "services" box on page 2 has been totally redacted. So in fact there is no authority for any PPC to issue an NTK.

There is no expiry date stated to the authority and as such no proof that this document was still valid at the time and date of the alleged parking.

In the document titled “statement.pdf”, Britannia Parking claim that “The Parking Charge Notice is POFA compliant”, however this is not true.

Schedule 4 of POFA Para 9(2)(i) states that:

POFA 2012 - Schedule 4 - Paragraph 9 section (2)(i)

"specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case)."

The NTK issued by Britannia Parking only refers to the 'Date of this notice' rather than the date the NTK was actually sent (as required by POFA) - there is no reference at all as to when it was actually sent. Therefore the NTK is not POFA compliant.

On the photos of the signs that were received by Britannia, it quite clearly states:
“Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which:”

Britannia Parking have not clarified, in their submission of evidence, a clear and comprehensive list of circumstances of when a Parking Charge Notice “may not” be issued. This is completely ambiguous, as the use of the word ”may” would indicate that there are times when a Parking Charge Notice “may not” be issued. If a Parking Charge Notice is a definite outcome of a parking contravention, then the word “WILL” should replace the word “MAY”.

Looking at the images of the car park, you can see that some areas of the car park lack the required signage ie there is a complete absence of signs.. Also, examining the images of the blue signs, they state that a PCN may be issued if vehicles “Are not parked entirely within a marked bay”. Yet as you can see from the photos supplied by Britannia Parking, there are no marked bays at all, just unlevelled ground.

Britannia Parking have failed to provide any contra-evidence or rebut any of the items raised in point 6 of my POPLA Appeal – “6. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR”

They have also failed to provide any evidence that the signs in the car park warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used as raised in point 7 of my POPLA appeal – “7.The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for”

Finally, of small relevance to my case, Britannia Parking claim in their statement that:

“We also offer a late payment option should an overstay happen, we allow up to 48 hours after the driver has left the car park to call to make a late payment or inform us of the situation should the driver contact us.”

Yet, on examining the images of their signs sent in their evidence, there is no mention of this.

KeithP

Do you realise that your response to the operator's evidence will need to be less than two thousand characters to fit in the PoPLA portal?

It is currently 7,372 characters.

Nonconform

thanks KeithP, i'll shorten it

Nonconform

I managed to summarise it in end, after realising that just 5 characters were needed to say it all I thought I could pad it out with "merry xmas" at the beginning.

Nonconform

Unfortunately my appeal was unsuccessful. Below is the response from POPLA:

"The assessor has considered the evidence provided by both parties and has determined that the appeal be Refused 
The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:
Assessor summary of operator's case:
 The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment. 
Assessor summary of appellant's case:
 The operator’s case is that the appellant failed to make a valid payment. 
Assessor summary of reasons:
 In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider 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 TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES INCLUDING BLUE BADGE HOLDERS. 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 16:13pm and exited the site at 18:35pm.
The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of two hours and 22 minutes.
In the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”
Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. The signage also clearly states the signage is monitored by ANPR systems and that this is a private car park.
I will not be considering data protection in the ICO Code of Practice, as POPLA also look at the BPA Code of Practice. This would not have any bearing to my decision.
Section 7.1 of the 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 it the authority to carry out all the aspects of the car park management. It has the authority to issue PCN’s to motorists.
After reviewing the operator’s evidence, I can see the driver did purchase parking time but exceeded this by 22 minutes. Therefore, the driver has breached the terms and conditions.
The operator has provided a copy of a system generated print out that shows that insufficient 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.
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 PCN correctly.
Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. "