Britannia denied appeal, what can I do now?

yup117

Hi all,

BACKSTORY:

I parked at a small village station which has two car parks on either side of the station. After rushing to my train I then used the Indigo App to pay for what I thought was the car park. A week or so later I received a PCN from Britannia saying I had breached their T&C's by parking without a ticket. After a quick google it turns out that while the two car parks are named the same, in the same location at the same station, they are infact owned by two different companies. One Britannia (which I parked at), the other Thameslink (which I payed for parking for).

I appealed, stating that the car park is named deceitfully and that I payed for the parking via Indigo (I named myself as the driver, oops!). I also quoted that another person had made the same mistake, raking up a large amount in fines. Britannia even said in the article that paying online for parking via Indigo for a car park with the same name is an "unusual occurrence"!

I have contacted Thameslink to no reply and my local MP to force them to change their name, who is in contact with Britannia.

Britannia have replied, denying my appeal stating that the signs are clear (no they're not, its a large car park with very small signs). Stating that they cannot be held liable for misinformation provided by a Non-Britannia parking info source. They have extended the discounted rate for 14 days and also stated I can appeal to POPLA within 28 days.

Where can I go from here?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

yup117 wrote: »

Where can I go from here?

Thanks

Appeal to POPLA. Did they send you a code?

yup117

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Appeal to POPLA. Did they send you a code?

yes they did. What can I say?

The same as I have already stated?

Le_Kirk

You look at the NEWBIE thread (one click back, third post down) and read post # 3 on that thread, where you will find examples of POPLA appeals. Might be worth checking if the car parks are actually railway stations and if you are being pursued under bye-laws. In which case just play letter tennis with them for six months. Search the forum for Indigo bye-laws issues.

yup117

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You look at the NEWBIE thread (one click back, third post down) and read post # 3 on that thread, where you will find examples of POPLA appeals. Might be worth checking if the car parks are actually railway stations and if you are being pursued under bye-laws. In which case just play letter tennis with them for six months. Search the forum for Indigo bye-laws issues.

Could you break this down for me? I don't quite understand. sorry.

I believe both are named "_______ Railway Station" however Thameslink run the station and the Indigo car park which I did not park at, but paid for.

Britannia haven't mentioned the Railway company in any letters either.
Not sure if any of this helps clearing things up.

Le_Kirk

What does it say on the PCN?

yup117

Le_Kirk wrote: »

What does it say on the PCN?

PCN - NOTICE TO KEEPER
Britannia Parking

Contravention: Failed to make valid payment
Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full.

Pictures of the car entering and leaving with number plate.

Payment Info, Appeals Info,

Data protection act info stating that if the data has been used inappropriately.

Thats the most of it.


On another note the whole reason I payed with Indigo is the fact that if you google the name of the station with parking. It comes up with only an Indigo link. Stupid naming.

Coupon-mad

OK, so you need to put together a POPLA appeal with the usual 'no landowner authority' paragraph you will have already seen when you looked at the thread you were directed to - the NEWBIES thread post #3.

In addition, as your main first point in fact, you will need an edited version of the 'unclear signage' appeal point (again, the templates are there in the NEWBIES thread), or preferably your own version about signage/misleading car park names, telling the story of the two car parks and what happened.

And embedding the image of the (? newspaper) article you mentioned, that proved this is not a one off occurrence, and get an aerial view shot from Google maps, showing POPLA where the two car parks are, and a screenshot of what comes up on your phone when you try to pay for the Britannia car park name.

Evidence is what can win this at POPLA.

Show us your draft POPLA appeal (taking into account the above and including a second point 'no landowner authority') and your pictures and proof, so we can help you more.

Unusually, your case will be less 'template' and more the story of the misleading car parks adjacent to each other and with the same name.

yup117

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, so you need to put together a POPLA appeal with the usual 'no landowner authority' paragraph you will have already seen when you looked at the thread you were directed to - the NEWBIES thread post #3.

In addition, as your main first point in fact, you will need an edited version of the 'unclear signage' appeal point (again, the templates are there in the NEWBIES thread), or preferably your own version about signage/misleading car park names, telling the story of the two car parks and what happened.

And embedding the image of the (? newspaper) article you mentioned, that proved this is not a one off occurrence, and get an aerial view shot from Google maps, showing POPLA where the two car parks are, and a screenshot of what comes up on your phone when you try to pay for the Britannia car park name.

Evidence is what can win this at POPLA.

Show us your draft POPLA appeal (taking into account the above and including a second point 'no landowner authority') and your pictures and proof, so we can help you more.

Unusually, your case will be less 'template' and more the story of the misleading car parks adjacent to each other and with the same name.

Okay, fantastic. Will get to work on this and post in the next day.

yup117

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, so you need to put together a POPLA appeal with the usual 'no landowner authority' paragraph you will have already seen when you looked at the thread you were directed to - the NEWBIES thread post #3.

In addition, as your main first point in fact, you will need an edited version of the 'unclear signage' appeal point (again, the templates are there in the NEWBIES thread), or preferably your own version about signage/misleading car park names, telling the story of the two car parks and what happened.

And embedding the image of the (? newspaper) article you mentioned, that proved this is not a one off occurrence, and get an aerial view shot from Google maps, showing POPLA where the two car parks are, and a screenshot of what comes up on your phone when you try to pay for the Britannia car park name.

Evidence is what can win this at POPLA.

Show us your draft POPLA appeal (taking into account the above and including a second point 'no landowner authority') and your pictures and proof, so we can help you more.

Unusually, your case will be less 'template' and more the story of the misleading car parks adjacent to each other and with the same name.

Hi, here is my appeal: the bold text is my own written words.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself



I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:



''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.



Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the sum, which does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.



I believe there is a degree of unclear and misleading signage at the Britannia owned ____ Station Car Park that conflicts with the Thameslink one located at the same station. Upon entry, there is a large "Welcome to _____ Station" [1 IMAGE OF SIGN] sign, with no clear signage stating who owns the car park. For how large the car park is, the signs are incredibly small and of little number.

I boarded my train and knowing that the Indigo app is used for a majority of Thameslink stations, I entered “_____ Station” having seen the sign upon entry [1] [2 IMAGE OF INDIGO APP] and payed via their app. The signage of this car park owned by Britannia is unclear and misleading not just for myself as well.

Upon receiving my PCN, I found that I am not the only person to fall for this naming/signage, as seen by this article.

ARTICLE: __________

Since the car parks are named virtually the same, and in the same location [3 GOOGLE IMAGE OF CAR PARKS PROXIMITY, HIGHLIGHTED] and without clear signage, I believe there is not sufficient terms to bring the PCN upon myself.



No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.



s this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

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

Coupon-mad

I'd start (right at the beginning of the whole appeal) by saying:

This is about a site where there are two adjacent car parks with little or no delineation between them, run by two different operators, using such a similar car park name. It is impossible for a driver paying by phone to tell the difference when paying by phone on the train, as both operators allow. There was nothing to clarify that this was a section of car park operated by Britannia, as opposed to Indigo.