POPLA RESULT RECEIVED - Britannia Parking PCN

MistyZ

I'm going to read this carefully tomorrow morning (by which time the much more expert folk may well have commented). However, we're rolling in the aisles in my house this evening, looking at your photos. They have to be the most compelling 'poor signage' ones I've seen so far! Awesome job Jakeh. What were Britannia thinking? (Oh I know - ££££).

Jakeh_2

Thanks Misty!

I'm looking forward to getting 'sign off' from you experienced folk before I send it!

Please let me know ASAP

Thank you all

MistyZ

What is the deadline for your appeal? It's 28 days from receipt of first appeal rejection according to the parking companies, but apparently 32 days is the real timescale(!)

You refer to figure 4 as if it shows small font on signage, yet what figure 4 actually illustrates is that signs were pretty much invisible in the darkness, let alone difficult to read. I think I'd keep the points about completely inadequate lighting quite distinct from points about lettering so that the lighting issue really stands out. Have you done a search of the board for POPLA appeals that feature poor lighting? From what we've heard from you, the driver's most obvious challenge was seeing anything at all! So while using the templates in the Newbies' section to the max, also ensure that you really mould them to this specific 'parking event'. This all takes time which is why I asked how long you've got.

Perhaps one of your torchlit photos could be used to illustrate the crowded / small font? Though I'd make it quite clear that the image was captured with the help of a (strong?) torch when you visited the site after receiving the PCN.

Something you haven't mentioned here is how long after the parking event you received the PCN and whether it was POFA compliant. Also, have you decided not to include the section: 'the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge'?? That seems a bit of an omission.

I don't think POPLA will follow links, noticed you have a few of those. Could require quotes instead.

Le_Kirk

Have you done a search of the board for POPLA appeals that feature poor lighting? From what we've heard from you, the driver's most obvious challenge was seeing anything at all!

I agree, if you could not see the signs, you could not read them and would not know about small font!

MistyZ

Jakeh, if you're having an attack of the Christmases or have run out of time & so just want / need to get this done & dusted, then do. I don't fully understand some points you've made but the more I look at it the more I think that the critique of signage is basically pretty damn good.

I'd be very interested to know the outcome.

The_Deep

There was no lighting and no other vehicles parked in the area and it was pitch black. They could see no signs, no bays and nothing stood out which made it seem like a car park that required payment to stay in.

Even if you lose at PoPLA it is not a big deal.

They would have an uphill struggle if they went to court to try to convince a judge that you knowingly entered into a contract with them. Complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Jakeh_2

Thanks for the replies.


I received a response to my first appeal on 07/12/2018 so I have until 04/01/2018 / 08/01/2018 to submit my POPLA appeal.


The date of the alleged contravention is 04/11/2018 and I (as registered keeper) received an invoice, sorry - I mean PCN on 09/11/2018.


Unfortunately I had no idea this forum existed and with me being naive I appealed on 12/11/2018 hoping the PPC would see sense. Had I known of this forum I of course wouldn't have done that.


I have taken on board your feedback and removed the section regarding the font size as you're right - it didn't make sense. I've taken the decision to remove it altogether rather than include a torchlight image as I feel the burden of proof should be on the PPC to prove that it was legible in the hours of darkness.
Having removed this section the fact the signs were actually impossible to see stands out far more.


The PCN appears to be POFA compliant, but I've only done a small amount of research on that. It has a paragraph about POFA, transfer of liability, received the PCN in time etc. Happy to upload a copy for you to view if that'll be beneficial.


Misty, reference to your point "the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge". I have not included this because I can't recall exactly what I said in my online appeal - I was too stupid to keep a copy. I'm confident I selected the option to appeal as RK, but the content of the appeal is where my memory fails me. Is it worth doing a SAR to obtain this information?


I'm definitely going to complaint to my MP.

Umkomaas

Is it worth doing a SAR to obtain this information?

Anyone who believes they are missing any information should be sending in a SAR. But the permitted turnaround time for the PPC is 1 month. Your POPLA deadline expires before then, so don't hold back your POPLA appeal if there has been no response to your SAR by the POPLA deadline.

SAR TEMPLATE

From Legal Beagles

https://legalbeagles.info/library/guides_and_letters/court/subject-access-request/

Jakeh_2

Thanks, Umkomaas. I'll submit that SAR this evening, but won't hold my breath.


I've complained to my local MP and the MP of the constituency where the car park is located.

Also, stupid question. At the top of the appeal when I do finally send it where it says "Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Britannia Parking"... Does [XXX] reference my surname as RK or the POPLA ref?

Thanks

KeithP

Jakeh wrote: »

Also, stupid question. At the top of the appeal when I do finally send it where it says "Appeal re POPLA Code: [XXX] v Britannia Parking"... Does [XXX] reference my surname as RK or the POPLA ref?

Do you think you should follow the words POPLA Code: with perhaps errr... a POPLA Code?

Just a guess.