We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Britannia Parking Postal PCN. 2nd Stage Appeal
OldCodger.
Posts: 9 Forumite
Please see below draft appeal to POPLA. This is a first attempt at challenging the grounds of a PCN and would welcome peoples thoughts before submitting to POPLA soon.
POPLA REF: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 31st October 2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Britannia Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 4th November 2019 and rejected by an email dated 7th November 2019. I contend that I, as the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. No evidence of Period Parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
4. Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear that a contract was never entered in to), It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s guidance specifically says 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.” 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.”
It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Britannia Parking claim was 14 minutes and 2 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its’ primary source of lighting.
b) Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at the time of the visit – 18:03:48 to 18:17:50.
c) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
d) The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
e) The lengthiness of Britannia Parkings’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in small print making it difficult to read, further hindered by poor lighting.
All factors described above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
1) Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
2) Read the full terms and conditions in darkness
3) Decipher the confusing information presented, for example whether any reduced fees apply for parking periods of less than 24hours, which it does not.
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
There wasn’t any contract or agreement on the parking charge at all. It is declared that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion to the times recorded by the ANPR device. A £100 charge equating to approximately 18 days of parking at £5.50 per day/24 hours is deemed unfair.
Signs are positioned at a height that upon entering the car park in darkness cannot be seen with a cars headlights and a lower level sign stating “camera controlled – Pay On Arrival” is turned away from the direction of oncoming vehicles entering the car park. (see figure 1 and 2 below). In complete darkness, it would be easy to assume that this isn’t a private car park and could even appear to be waste land. The sign on entrance is not prominent or suitably lit, making it very difficult to determine that this is private land. A payment machine is placed on exit, again poorly lit and not obvious that payment can be taken here. There is one other payment machine in the far corner of the car park, which isn’t aided by any artificial light and is approximately 100 yards from the car park entrance, very difficult to locate in complete darkness. (see Figure 3 – machine is top left of centre if it is not immediately obvious and please do bear in mind this was taken during daylight).
The BPA Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs and states:
1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.
In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it is not even visible in darkness), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It is not directly lit not does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. It may well be made of reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.
It is important at this point to note that vehicles approaching/entering the car park do so from a 30mph street and when discussing entrance signs, the BPA CoP suggests that a typical approach speed of 15 mph to enter a car park by immediately turning off a 30mph road. (In this particular case there are no signs or road markings at the location to determine where the entry/exit should be).
From the above (Figure 3) it is also clear that signs in the car park are placed at a height that most people will fail to read. As seen in the above picture, the sign is higher than a regular 4x4 vehicle.
3. No Evidence of Period Parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Britannia Parking are utilising cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay. It is not in the gift of Britannia Parking to 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 are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle, however they do not clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The second image showing the rear of the vehicle is heavily blurred and the vehicle registration is not identifiable and has been inserted underneath (but not part of) the images. Evidence to indisputably relate these images to the location stated should be provided.
Yours Faithfully,
[/LEFT]
POPLA REF: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 31st October 2019 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Britannia Parking – was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on 4th November 2019 and rejected by an email dated 7th November 2019. I contend that I, as the registered keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:
1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
3. No evidence of Period Parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
4. Vehicle images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance.
1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non compliance
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“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.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (18.5) states that:
“If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”
The BPA Code of Practice (13.4) clearly states that the Grace Period to leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear that a contract was never entered in to), It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the minimum of 10 minutes grace period stipulated in 13.4 is also a “reasonable grace period” to apply to 13.1 and 13.2 of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
“The BPA’s guidance specifically says 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.” 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.”
It is therefore argued that the duration of the visit in question (which Britannia Parking claim was 14 minutes and 2 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
a) The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its’ primary source of lighting.
b) Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at the time of the visit – 18:03:48 to 18:17:50.
c) The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
d) The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
e) The lengthiness of Britannia Parkings’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in small print making it difficult to read, further hindered by poor lighting.
All factors described above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
1) Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
2) Read the full terms and conditions in darkness
3) Decipher the confusing information presented, for example whether any reduced fees apply for parking periods of less than 24hours, which it does not.
2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear of legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
There wasn’t any contract or agreement on the parking charge at all. It is declared that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion to the times recorded by the ANPR device. A £100 charge equating to approximately 18 days of parking at £5.50 per day/24 hours is deemed unfair.
Signs are positioned at a height that upon entering the car park in darkness cannot be seen with a cars headlights and a lower level sign stating “camera controlled – Pay On Arrival” is turned away from the direction of oncoming vehicles entering the car park. (see figure 1 and 2 below). In complete darkness, it would be easy to assume that this isn’t a private car park and could even appear to be waste land. The sign on entrance is not prominent or suitably lit, making it very difficult to determine that this is private land. A payment machine is placed on exit, again poorly lit and not obvious that payment can be taken here. There is one other payment machine in the far corner of the car park, which isn’t aided by any artificial light and is approximately 100 yards from the car park entrance, very difficult to locate in complete darkness. (see Figure 3 – machine is top left of centre if it is not immediately obvious and please do bear in mind this was taken during daylight).
The BPA Code of Practice sets the requirements for entrance signs and states:
1. The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.
2. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.
In disputing points 1 and 2 above, the relevant entrance sign in this appeal case is not readable by drivers without their need to look away from the road ahead (it is not even visible in darkness), nor is it readable and understandable at all times. It is not directly lit not does it benefit from lighting used for the parking area. It may well be made of reflective material but this is irrelevant in this case as the positioning of the entrance sign is such that vehicle headlights will never shine on it sufficiently so as to illuminate it.
It is important at this point to note that vehicles approaching/entering the car park do so from a 30mph street and when discussing entrance signs, the BPA CoP suggests that a typical approach speed of 15 mph to enter a car park by immediately turning off a 30mph road. (In this particular case there are no signs or road markings at the location to determine where the entry/exit should be).
From the above (Figure 3) it is also clear that signs in the car park are placed at a height that most people will fail to read. As seen in the above picture, the sign is higher than a regular 4x4 vehicle.
3. No Evidence of Period Parked – NTK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA code of practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.
Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Britannia Parking are utilising cameras to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the car park to calculate their length of stay. It is not in the gift of Britannia Parking to 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 are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
4. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way.
The PCN in question contains two images of the vehicle, however they do not clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all). The second image showing the rear of the vehicle is heavily blurred and the vehicle registration is not identifiable and has been inserted underneath (but not part of) the images. Evidence to indisputably relate these images to the location stated should be provided.
Yours Faithfully,
[/LEFT]
0
Comments
-
Needs no landowner authority adding0
-
Thank you....
FYI - Britannia stated that "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. You are not entitled to business sensitive information, it will only be supplied at court, as evidence and not before."0 -
So ? , Make them prove it to Popla
Surely you don't believe everything you are told ?
They could say they own Buckingham palace , doesn't make it true
If you don't query landowner authority , you are deemed to have accepted it , meaning it won't be checked by Popla
It may have expired , may be incomplete or unsigned , may not flow from landowner to Britannia as it may be via a managing agent
You have no idea , yet you are not querying it , instead you believe the salt water crocodile when he says he isn't hungry as he has just eaten ?
Police detectives have a simple ABC mantra
Accept nothing
Believe nothing
Check everything
They catch suspects , many of whom say they weren't there , are law abiding citizens , own the 5 watches and 3 gold bands and £4500 cash found on them , yet don't know how the screwdriver and gloves arrived in their pocket
Hint , they lie0 -
I agree with Redx. The 'no landowner authority' section is ready & waiting in the Newbies' thread - it doesn't even usually need customising.
Anyway, methinks Britannia doth protest too much! Like all the PPCs their authority to operate car parks is often questionable or even non-existent and many a POPLA appeal is won on that basis.0 -
Thanks for the advice on here. It is very much appreciated. I've spotted a potential error in the Britannia appeal outcome regarding Grace Period, which I will also use in my defence at POPLA appeal. Quote "Section 13 - Grace Periods, details that you have 10 minutes grace period on arrival to purchase a valid ticket. If the driver has not purchased a valid ticket within the 10 minute grace period, a Parking Charge Notice will be issued, as the driver has breached the terms and conditions of the car park."
They allude to the fact there are two grace periods (plural), but trying to limit me to one which is upon entry to the car park which doesn't align to the BPA wording.0 -
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Correct , we believe there are two grace periods , one at the beginning to allow a driver to park , read signs and purchase a valid ticket or time , then the grace period to depart at the end of the parking period subject to traffic etc
The time purchased is for actual parking time , not manoeuvring time
When you buy a plane ticket for a two hour flight , the two hours doesn't include waiting at the gate , waiting for boarding , waiting in your seat whilst everyone sits down , nor waiting to get off at the other end , ie whilst the captain and the tugs do the moving around on the tarmac
The captain tells you the flight time from lift off to landing , time in the air only , which is what you have paid for0 -
This draft POPLA appeal is not following the format we suggest, when you read the other examples you find when you search the forum for:
POPLA SPLIT GRACE PERIODS
Please copy the tried & tested form of words.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Will add details regarding split grace period and give a detailed walk through of each period.
In support of the appeal, a floodlight mounted on the same pole as the car park sign upon entrance/exit is not working and the car park and payment machine is in complete darkness.
Parking bays are not obvious as they are bricks set into rough ground. In darkness (when the alleged contravention happened) it is very difficult to ascertain if the car is parked in a valid bay or not. Not sure how much weight this will carry, but all gives the impression that the car park is poorly maintained and not fit for purpose.0 -
Replace the signage point with the long Inadequate signage point from post 3 of the NEWBIES. Bay markings by whatever means are part of "signage". They are a sign indicating where a motorist is supposed to park, and will be referred to on the signs themselves.
Photos of the site and signage showing how difficult/impossible to see where the bays are situated meaning a motorist needs extra time should be included.
Embed photos into the appeal rather than links to ensure the assessor actually looks at them.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards