Brittania Parking Ticket POPLA Advice

Daytona246

Another update,

I have received a Final Rminder letter dated 1st July threatning debt collection and adding another £60 additional costs. How bloody ridiculous!

Still waiting for a response from the Pub and going away until monday. Are they allowed to send this letter even though the popla code hasn't expired yet? They haven't even atated what the £60 is for.

If fail to get anywhere with them i will start my draft appeal and online reviews.

Kind regards
DAYTONA246

Redx

Complain about this breach to the BPA AOS team by email and attach copies of all the letters adding a brief timeline of events as well

Any debt letters should only be sent after the popla code has expired as it should be on hold until then

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Daytona246

Update!

Received an email from the pub company informing me they have cancelled the parking charge!

"Upon receipt of your contact, we have been in contact with the Management Team at the Pub who have personally been in touch with Britannia Parking.

They have since informed us that your Parking Charge has now been cancelled.

I hope this is satisfactory.

Kind regards"


Received another final demand letter explaining the discount period has expired, pay now etc or another £60....

Does anyone know how to complain to the BPA? Just worried in case something gets missed and they try to take it further. The popla expires on 14 july but unsure if i need to do anything with it.

Kind regards

Daytona246

Le_Kirk

Daytona246 wrote: »

Does anyone know how to complain to the BPA? Just worried in case something gets missed and they try to take it further. The popla expires on 14 july but unsure if i need to do anything with it.

Kind regards

Daytona246

Use this email address for Steve Clark: -
steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

Quentin

Until you get confirmation from the PPC they have cancelled dont miss any relevant deadlines

Daytona246

So would you advise still appealing popla? I have an email in writing from Greenking Pubs surely thats enough evidence in case this escalates?

Daytona246

Can someone advise attaching emails confirming the company and manager cancelling the fine to the POPLA appeal? Im going to start drawing up the appeal as I havent heard anything drom Brittania.....

MistyZ

In a similar situation I phoned Britannia and asked them why, as Keeper, I'd received a reminder when their PCN had in fact been cancelled by the landowner. They apologised on the phone & then sent an apologetic email confirming the cancellation.

The advice here is never to phone a PPC, but apart from the need to speak cautiously I didn't see a problem with it in that instance. See what others say though.

Daytona246

[FONT=&quot]Appeal re POPLA code: XXX; YYYY v Britannia Parking Group Ltd

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I was NOT the driver.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

3) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

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

5) 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.

6) Photo evidence appears doctored.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7) [/FONT]The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
8) The Landowner has confirmed the cancellation of the PCN
[FONT=&quot]

---

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) due to the dates and the wording used.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) Britannia Parking; (a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further; If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8;
It is my understanding that for an operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]PoFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) 2012 must be adhered to. The Driver of the vehicle has not been identified (as confirmed in Britannia’s rejection of my appeal, dated 11th September 2018) and the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with section 9 of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]PoFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2012 (no windscreen ticket was issued), specifically the following passage:

‘The notice must; f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given; (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’

The Notice to Keeper that was received (Parking Charge Number XXX, dated 13th of August 2018) omits such information. I have included in my POPLA submission the two pages of the notice which confirms that such text is absent. The only instruction in this regard is as follows:

‘As the motorist has contravened the terms and conditions detailed on the signage, a parking charge notice has been issued and is now payable to Britannia Parking….If you were the driver at the time of the event you are required to pay the parking charge.’;

Evidently, the operator has withheld from me (as the registered keeper) the required details of my liabilities in the event that the driver is not identified. This might be an omission on the part of the operator or a deliberate attempt to mislead, but regardless, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]PoFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2012 (section 9).
As this operator has evidently failed to serve a compliant NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]PoFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly elaborated.

2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability:

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]POFA[/FONT][FONT=&quot].

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

3) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

The CoP states:

You should allow the driver a reasonable grace period in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.
You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.

For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between grace periods and observation periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

hxxp://vvv.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

‘Good car parking practice includes grace periods;
An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.’ he explains.

No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’; as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

The observation period (at the start)

The ANPR photos on the PCN show an arrival time of 18:25 and a leaving time of 19:59. (See attached copies of the Parking charge) No evidence has been provided as to the trustworthiness of the timing system used to generate the date stamps attached to the photographs (please also see points relating to both these issues below)

The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors.

The alleged overstay, given Kelvin Reynolds' defined 'observation time' and the type of businesses at the location is certainly possible. Time would have been taken just driving in, no doubt in a queue, dodging groups of pedestrians carrying shopping and also waiting for other cars turning and reversing to park or leave, before reaching an empty bay then parking. After that, an average driver must unstrap any children, buggy, bags, then go to the display machine, read the terms and conditions and also the instructions of the machine to get the ticket.

Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park and unreliability of timestamped evidence on the photographs supplied, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.

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

As 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - 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. 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 also authorised 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 information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner 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

5) 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

The signs and the machine tariff board were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of ‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:
hxxp://vvv.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted
68 Requirement for transparency (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent. (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer with no tariff lists which is the primary prominent information on the board. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-

hvvp://imgur.com/a/AkMCN[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]more to come
[/FONT]