Britannia - The George Huntingdon

Pestie123

Hi,

Question for the hive-mind.

I have received an NTK for The George Hotel car park.
"Failed to validate stay or make valid payment"
Images of the car - but the images contain no reference to where the car actually is in relation to Car park. Just a date stamp.

Appealed directly to Britpark - without claiming to be the driver (I actually wasn't!!), but of course - rejected. Rejection letter states PCN was issued to the vehicle because the Pay & display ticket had expired.

So I visited the car-park (taking lots of photos!).
It's an ANPR car-park, using a Pay & Display payment machine. A simple one where you have to put in your registration. It takes only cash. No option to pay by card. You can make a phone call, but the signage is not clear/ damaged and it legit took me 10 mins to see it whilst actively looking for it on my visit!

The NTK shows only time-in & out. Makes no reference to the payment made.

So the question is: if I wasn't the driver (and thus have no ticket), it's cash-only, how can Brit-park prove that the vehicle didn't have the correct payment?

Can anyone suggest a similar link/ thread for me to reference?

Ralph-y

welcome to the forum ....


the newbies thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou
is the forum guide and you should have a read .......



where you using the The George Hotel ? if so have you complained?


In the newbies guide you will find the template that we recommend as a first appeal ...


good luck


Ralph:cool:

The_Deep

[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]

Pestie123

Hi Ralphy and all.

To answer the question I wasn't at the Hotel - I'm honestly not the Driver on this occasion - but yes, I have complained to the Hotel, and will continue to pursue that even if they do nothing...

Secondly, I've been through the newbies thread and several other resources and come up with this as by POPLA appeal based on the BPA Grace periods thread/ letter (Newbies thread, post 3)


I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated xx/xx/xx acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator: Britannia Parking (Here-by refered to as Brit-Park)– was submitted and acknowledged by the Operator on xx/xx/xx and rejected via a letter dated xx/xx/xx. I contend that I, as the 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 or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
3. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strictproof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
5. No Evidence of Period Parked - NtK does not meet PoFA 2012
6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – noncompliance
7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
8. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPRData will be used for
requirements
9. Material breach
10 Proffesionalism

I replaced 9 of the original and added 10:

9. b. Consumer Contract Regulations 2013 and private parking
The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCR 2013) were introduced to consumer contracts from 13th June. The importance of these regulations is that since private parking is based on contract law, these regulations set down a number of requirements for a valid consumer contract. If those are not met (i.e. breached by the parking company) then the motorist cannot be bound by the contract, and therefore not liable for the parking charge.
The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.
The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:
[You should review Schedule 2 to understand which parts are not met and list them explaining why they have not been met.
Examples in a parking contract might include:
2(c) – Requirement to provide a geographical address. The Claimant’s address is given as a PO Box number.
2(k) – Requirement to provide a complaint handling policy. This is not described on the signage.
2(o) – Requirement to provide information about the right to cancel, or to state that there is no right to cancel. This is not stated on the signage.
2(r) – Requirement to provide information about Codes of Conduct. This does not appear on the signage.
2(x) – Requirement for access to an Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. Not indicated by the signage.]

Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that as Keeper of the vehicle I cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.


d. Consumer Rights Act 2015
62 Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.
(4)A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.
(5)Whether a term is fair is to be determined—
(a)taking into account the nature of the subject matter of the contract, and
(b)by reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed and to all of the other terms of the contract or of any other contract on which it depends.
(6)A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer.
(7)Whether a notice is fair is to be determined—
(a)taking into account the nature of the subject matter of the notice, and
(b)by reference to all the circumstances existing when the rights or obligations to which it relates arose and to the terms of any contract on which it depends.
Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, demonstrates a non-exhaustive list on Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair.
In specific:
3. A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader’s will alone.
5. A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been supplied.
 As a Pay on arrival Car Park, if any event caused a person using the Car park, there is no way to retrospectively pay for any over stay.
18. A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.
 See above.
The list is non-exhaustive.


10. Profesionalism.
Section 9.5 from the BPOA code of practice:
You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of noncompliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel

The NtK as issued by Brit-Parks states an entry Time and exit time only, as per figure 7 above. The NtK states the contravention as “Failed to validate stay or make a Valid payment”
It makes nor reference to any payment made
On appeal, directly to Brit-park (see attached letter)
- If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

Brit-park responded: The Parking Charge Notice was issued to the vehicle because the pay and Display ticket had expired.
So it is acknowledged that the Driver did pay. Brit park make no reference to what that payment was. It could have been for 8 hours for all I know. It could be that the Ticket machine is in error. How often is it calibrated? Given that Brit-parks are asking for the highest amount possible they can claim under the BPOA code, yet do not offer the full evidence, it’s clear that Brit-parks have a commercial interest in pursuing vehicle s that enter – and leave their car park, wether a valid ticket was purchased on not. This is predatory. This behaviour has been acknowledged by MP’s and although has not direct relation to this appeal, it’s worth noting that this type of behaviour has to stop – and that we – the public – rely on the good conscious of the ombudsmen to to protect us from such bad practice.
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.

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

(Section 10 is still a work in progress)

anyone have any thoughts?

Coupon-mad

I will look at this in the daytime but only when the split infinitive is gone (please!!).

Search the forum - arrrrgghh!!