Brittania PPC Newbie post

Taliessa

Hello again! Wanted to let you know that I was in Court today and I WON!!! :T:T:T:T:j:j:j:j

I am so pleased and just want to thank you guys on here so so much because I could never have done it without you! I am eternally grateful to everyone here who posted their advice & help, thankyou, thankyou!

Some points regarding the case that may help others going through this...

The Claimant's WS was written up by a BW Legal Paralegal (lots of mistakes such as my name, address, gender and particulars of the case that did not make sense) Britannia was defended by an agency representative (trainee solicitor or barrister I think)

The Britannia rep quoted a case in law where a lady had not seen the signage and had lost in Court but my Judge today said that case was not relevant to this one as circumstances completely different.
She began making her judgement after only 10 minutes and I hardly said anything really, just reiterated what was in my WS.

She said the BW Legal WS contained several anomalies and there was no continuity. She said all photographs taken including the reg plate of my car were stock photos. She said who took them? Where were they taken? When? She said ANPR camera supposedly took photo of reg number but where is the proof of this? She said she must have proper proof for continuity.
She said landowner agreement is with XXX but how do I know XXX has any authority over this parking area? Again no proof. She said it is not up to the defendant to prove she does not owe this charge it is up to you to prove that she does and you have not done that today so I am dismissing the claim.
So it was basically Britannia's evidence that did not show proof that the judge found in my favour.
Thankyou all again, you guys are amazing on here! :beer::beer::beer:

Redx

well done

did you get awarded costs ?

which judge and court ?

friday the 13th for the claimant, lol

Another one bites the dust !!

Coupon-mad

YAY, WELL DONE! Another Britannia one bites the dust! :T

Second one reported here on Friday 13th.

Also ParkingMad went to assist a (complete stranger) Defendant in the waiting room and then watch their case at Brighton that she found listed, and she told me she enjoyed seeing OPS crash and burn YET AGAIN there, same day!

So that is 3 - 0 to the good guys & girls in one day.

The Britannia rep quoted a case in law where a lady had not seen the signage and had lost in Court but my Judge today said that case was not relevant to this one as circumstances completely different.

If they were using Vine v Waltham Forest, then MISS VINE DIDN'T SEE THE SIGNS BUT SHE WON HER CASE...BW legal and their cartel of PPCs are stupid, and if they are using VINE and saying she lost her case, they are lying or mistaken.

Which court was this win at?

beamerguy

Well done :beer:

BWLegal/Britannia spanked again.

The Britannia rep quoted a case in law where a lady had not seen the signage and had lost in Court but my Judge today said that case was not relevant to this one as circumstances completely different.

How come BWLegal did not realise that ???

This potty little cartel operating, deserve the spankings they get, just out of sheer incompetence alone.

Expect a lot more spankings in 2020

Taliessa

Costs - whilst I put in a costs schedule in my bundle, Judge did not mention it. I was so nervous and then so happy I won I totally forgot to claim costs - really dumb of me I know. Asked the usher afterwards who telephoned the judge but it was too late by then as the Britannia Rep had left. I really don't mind too much, it is my own fault. The main thing is I won the case!

Southampton Combined Court, London Road. Judge Rachael Goodall.

"Vine v Waltham Forest" Yes this was the case she cited.

Friday 13th yes - lucky day. 3 wins reported that's amazing news.

Thankyou again! :j

Taliessa

So the local paper have covered my story regarding my win in Court against Britannia. I mentioned you guys on here in the article so thought you might want to see it!

Here is the text and the link to the article

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/britannia-parking



Petra wins parking victory after 14-month court battle

ANOTHER motorist has celebrated overturning a penalty charge imposed by Britannia Parking which enforces a controversial restriction at a shopping parade.

Petra McGuire-Saunders, from Ashley, was penalised by the company for overstaying the 20-minute limit at New Milton’s Old Milton Green car park, off the A337 Christchurch Road.

She and her then fiance – and now husband – Daniel Saunders had gone for a meal at The Raj Indian Restaurant to celebrate the first anniversary of their engagement.

Having had an appeal against the penalty notice dismissed and received repeated demands for payment from the firm’s solicitors since the incident on 31st October 2018, she finally won her day in court last Friday.

Mrs McGuire-Saunders successfully argued the car park restriction signs were not visible when she parked her Toyota Yaris there in the dark around 10pm that night. A regular user of the car park for about 30 years, she convinced the judge that she did not know the limit had been put in place.

“I feel vindicated and over the moon,” she told the A&T afterwards.

“It’s been a weight on my mind for over a year. We got married in March this year and that was lovely, but at the back of my mind it was there.

“To have the case dismissed was fantastic. I knew I was right, stood up for myself and justice was done.”

Previous A&T reports about the car park restriction were submitted to small claims court hearing in Southampton by Mrs McGuire-Saunders as part of her evidence in the court case, during which her husband acted as a witness.

These reports included one about businesses complaining the 20-minute limit was harming trade, and one about another motorist, Philip Nippard, who had his penalty overturned by Bournemouth County Court.

Agreeing with Mr Nippard’s comment that it would have been easier in a way to have just paid the penalty, Mrs McGuire-Saunders maintained the principle of the argument was important.

Praising support received from an online forum run by Money Saving Expert guru Martin Lewis, she commented hers was one of three victories last Friday against Britannia Parking that it had aided. The other two cases were heard in court at Brighton.

“The legally trained experts on the Martin Lewis forum are wonderful,” she continued. “They give their time freely, but you do have to do the research yourself and that is a lot of work.”

‘I FEEL VINDICATED’
Mrs McGuire-Saunders had decided to take the case to court after her initial appeal against the original penalty charge notice, demanding £100 or £60 if paid within a fortnight, was dismissed by Britannia Parking.

Following this decision, she received a letter from the firm’s solicitors asking her to phone them, which she did to tell them she was taking the case to court.

“I gave them my mobile number in good faith, but they then texted me every single day and called me about every three days demanding payment, which caused me some distress,” she said.


“They do have a tendency to harass you for payment. I eventually blocked their number on my phone.

“I had made it quite clear to them that I was defending my case in court and wasn’t going to pay any money to them as, as far as I was concerned, there was no contract in place.”

In line with previously reported cases, she said the amounts demanded by the solicitors fluctuated, with around £250 being the highest demand. A lower £180 was then quoted as a “final offer”.

Mrs McGuire-Saunders also argued in court that the landowner agreement for the Old Milton Green site did not show proof of entitlement to run a private parking restriction.

This was also supported in the judge’s ruling, she said.

“The judge made it clear it was for Britannia to prove that I owed them what they are claiming not for me to prove that I don’t,” explained Mrs McGuire-Saunders.

“The judge took on board everything I said. She looked at all the photos I produced along with the site plan and all the other exhibits including three A&T articles

The core issue in our defence was neither of us saw the signs as the signs were so badly positioned, not illuminated and it was dark.”

The couple are hoping their victory will help encourage other motorists who may have been unwittingly caught out by private parking restrictions to fight their corner.

Mr Saunders commented: “The most discouraging thing throughout this case has been that neither Britannia Parking nor [its solicitors] have been interested in intelligent and extended communication.

“All we ever received were robotic and impersonal replies. Whereas Britannia Parking consistently claim to be responsible car park managers, the reality at the Old Milton Green site is that they have left a wake of distress and frustration.”


In response to this latest case, a Britannia Parking spokesperson said the Old Milton Green car park is one of a number at which it operates an automatic number plate recognition camera system.

“Enforcement of a 20-minute maximum stay guards against abuse of the site and illicit parking, such as cars being left all day or abandoned,” the spokesperson continued.

“It also ensures a turnover of spaces is available in the car park and assists traffic-flow.

“We are a member of the British Parking Association and the industry’s Approved Operators Scheme. All of our signs and procedures meet the Approved Operators Code of Conduct.

“We are a responsible car park operator and manager of more than 25 years’ standing. We take our responsibilities very seriously, including the need to pursue cases through legal proceedings when necessary.”

Redx

Great report , thank you and have a good Xmas and a better 2020

The usual templated codswallop reply from Brittannia , they don't care about the harm to businesses or harassing victims through third parties

The sooner the government parking CoP arrives the better , accountability and responsibility may come with it , but hiding behind a BPA banner is no defence from proper criticism

I am sure they thought P Troy was a decent person , clearly not (more of a tainted Trojan horse)

Best wishes Petra

Coupon-mad

Brilliant to read that report! Publicity against PPCs is always a good thing.

We are mostly not legally trained, just knowledgeable!

Fruitcake

Well done on your win, thanks for letting us know the great result.

Congratulations on getting married as well. You deserve to have a long and happy life together.

Taliessa

So you guys might be interested in this. We (myself & hubby) drew attention to the fact that planning permission has been retrospectively applied for the pole and ANPR camera at the Old Milton Green site. We invited people to register their objections should they feel so inclined and we managed to get 176 people to register their objections. Subsequently planning permission has been REFUSED and the story made the front page of the local. 

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/britannia-parking-refused

A CAR park enforcement camera which has led to dozens of drivers facing big penalty charges may have to be removed after district planners refused to give it permission.

The pole-mounted automatic number plate recognition camera was installed two years ago by Britannia Parking at Old Milton Green Parade car park in New Milton, which it manages on behalf of the London-based landlord.

Vehicles are limited to just 20 minutes parking there, and numerous motorists have fallen foul of the regulations – some threatened with hundreds of pounds in costs when they have refused to pay – although many of the penalty notices have been successfully challenged.

After the retrospective planning application was submitted before Christmas, 176 people objected to it with just one person – the owner of the laundrette at the parade – in favour.

This week the objectors were jubilant when it was announced it had been refused by New Forest District Council. The company could now face enforcement action to have it removed.

A spokesman for the NFDC said: “Following the refusal, we have opened a new enforcement case and will be carrying out a full investigation before deciding on a way forward.”

Reacting to the news on social media, one resident said it was an “excellent” result, adding: “I will never park there again or use the shops in the parade after being threatened with court action unjustifiably when using the laundrette.”

Another commented: “Does anyone know why it was allowed there for the previous two years?”

In its ruling, NFDC said the Britannia Parking pole and camera have “an adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the Old Milton Green Conversation Area by reason of its utilitarian and incongruous appearance in a prominent position in the street scene and adds harmfully to the visual clutter along this boundary”.

It also said the equipment “gives rise to very limited public benefits and the degree of harm is therefore of significant weight”.

Agent Savills, acting for Britannia, had attempted to placate the planners by offering last week to make amendments to the camera and pole but was told it was out of time.

n an email to the planning department, a representative of Savills stated: “Just to be clear, the proposal is seeking to regularise a relatively short pole within the forecourt of a three-storey 1960s commercial building that no one has noticed has been there for over two years.”

They claimed that during a site meeting in April 2019 the Britannia Parking camera and pole was “not flagged as being an issue at that stage”.

They also stated that during the meeting: “We had no sense at all at that time that he [the planning officer] even noticed the pole, and certainly not that he found it intrusive/harmful.

“As per our submission, this is a very minor feature which preserves the essential characteristics of the conservation area.

“The inclusion of the car park in the conservation area is more about the setting of the adjacent green than the site itself, and in that context the pole has no presence or impact.”

In reply, a planning officer disputed Savill’s recollection of the meeting, saying: “We feel that the only possible option would be a camera mounted on the existing buildings rather than a free-standing structure. As this would be an entirely different proposal, I am afraid that I feel there is no reason to delay issuing the decision as discussed.”

Outlining their reasons for refusal, the planners noted the number of objections received, and referred to “the unacceptable visual appearance of the structure and the fact that it has already been erected”.

The decision notice added: “Concerns are expressed in relation to the time limit of 20 minutes being unreasonable, impact on the businesses in the parade as use of the car park is discouraged, not happy with the way fines are being issued, the camera is an invasion of privacy, the car park should be operated publicly and that parking congestion is being caused elsewhere.

“The camera and pole are prominently located on a main route through the conservation area, while there are other similar structures nearby (e.g. telegraph poles and street lights), this structure is particularly utilitarian in appearance as a result of the size/section of the pole, the anti-climb feature and the galvanised finish.

“This, in combination with the prominent location of the pole, make it an incongruous feature in the street scene which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.”

A spokesman for Britannia Parking said: “We are aware of the planning decision about the ANPR camera and pole at Old Milton Green Parade.

“We will consider the council’s ruling and decide how to proceed in due course.”

What do you think? Write to the Advertiser and Times via letters@adt.press.