Britannia Parking - Canvey Island Seafront

Coupon-mad

Which is exactly what you were expecting to see and is why you win.  Is this not obvious?   

It is in the POPLA Decisions thread about how to win v Britannia.   

You know the bottom of your NTK and the signs, have a completely different Ltd company on them.  You simply point out to POPLA that the Ltd company (with company number) on the NTK and signs doesn't match the Ltd company (with company number) on the 'authority' and one Ltd company cannot be a trading name of another.  They are separate legal entities.

D_P_Dance

Have you redacted this or has the scammer? 

dfdandan

Coupon-mad said:

Which is exactly what you were expecting to see and is why you win.  Is this not obvious?   

It is in the POPLA Decisions thread about how to win v Britannia.   

You know the bottom of your NTK and the signs, have a completely different Ltd company on them.  You simply point out to POPLA that the Ltd company (with company number) on the NTK and signs doesn't match the Ltd company (with company number) on the 'authority' and one Ltd company cannot be a trading name of another.  They are separate legal entities.

Great thank you.

dfdandan

Sad times...
I didn’t win!

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “Up to 4 hours £3.50 … Overnight (18:00 – 09:00) £3.00” and “£100 parking charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 13:55, and leaving at 19:24. They have remained in the car park for 5 hours 28 minutes. The appellant says that the operator does not have authority from the landowner and the operator is not the same company noted on the signs or the notice to keeper. The operator has provided a copy of the landowner contract. It states: The customer (the landowner) accepts that the agreement with Britannia Parking Services Limited and its parent company Britannia Parking Group Limited in respect of the car park will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the British parking Associations AOS Code (Approved Operator Scheme), and hereby authorised the supplier (Britannia Parking Services Limited) and its parent company at their discretion to take legal action to recover parking charges where they remain unpaid. The landowner accepts that both entities are able to carry our car parking management in accordance with the code. They have also shown that the contract was valid on the day of the event and for the car park the motorist remained in. They state that the signs in the car park are not prominent and the amount of the parking charge is not given sufficient notice. I can see from the images of the car park that the signs are prominent and that it does make it clear that there is a parking charge. They advise that they requested evidence of the signs on the day of the event and how they appeared to the driver, but did not receive these. It is not necessary to provide evidence of the signs on the day as they have shown that there are signs in the car park and have been from at least January 2019, therefore, I am satisfied that they would be there now. The motorist on the ANPR images is shown to be driving in the day time, and the signs are shown in the day time, so they have shown they provided reasonable opportunity for the motorist to view these terms before deciding to remain. They say they requested evidence of where the vehicle was parked and they say that the writing on the signs is too small. The operator does not need to show where the vehicle was parked as the ANPR cameras clearly show that the vehicle entered and remained in the car park for 5 hours and 28 minutes. Whether it was parked for that period or not does not change the fact that the vehicle was in the car park for that period. The appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show that the signs do not conform to the BPA code of practice. The operator has provided machine data to show that a payment for up to 4 hours was purchased for the vehicle, however, the motorist has remained for 5 hours 28 minutes. The appellant has not provided any evidence to show that sufficient payment was made for the vehicle during this stay. It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has failed to make a valid payment. As they have failed to make a valid payment, the PCN has been issued. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Were_Doomed

     

Coupon-mad

dfdandan said:

Sad times...
I didn’t win!

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. 

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The sign states: “Up to 4 hours £3.50 … Overnight (18:00 – 09:00) £3.00” and “£100 parking charge notice may be issued to all vehicles which: Fail to purchase a valid ticket, voucher or permit”. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 13:55, and leaving at 19:24. They have remained in the car park for 5 hours 28 minutes. 

The appellant says that the operator does not have authority from the landowner and the operator is not the same company noted on the signs or the notice to keeper.

The operator has provided a copy of the landowner contract. It states: The customer (the landowner) accepts that the agreement with Britannia Parking Services Limited and its parent company Britannia Parking Group Limited in respect of the car park will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the British parking Associations AOS Code (Approved Operator Scheme), and hereby authorised the supplier (Britannia Parking Services Limited) and its parent company at their discretion to take legal action to recover parking charges where they remain unpaid. 

The landowner accepts that both entities are able to carry our car parking management in accordance with the code. They have also shown that the contract was valid on the day of the event and for the car park the motorist remained in.

They state that the signs in the car park are not prominent and the amount of the parking charge is not given sufficient notice. I can see from the images of the car park that the signs are prominent and that it does make it clear that there is a parking charge. They advise that they requested evidence of the signs on the day of the event and how they appeared to the driver, but did not receive these. It is not necessary to provide evidence of the signs on the day as they have shown that there are signs in the car park and have been from at least January 2019, therefore, I am satisfied that they would be there now. 

The motorist on the ANPR images is shown to be driving in the day time, and the signs are shown in the day time, so they have shown they provided reasonable opportunity for the motorist to view these terms before deciding to remain. They say they requested evidence of where the vehicle was parked and they say that the writing on the signs is too small. The operator does not need to show where the vehicle was parked as the ANPR cameras clearly show that the vehicle entered and remained in the car park for 5 hours and 28 minutes. Whether it was parked for that period or not does not change the fact that the vehicle was in the car park for that period. The appellant has not provided any compelling evidence to show that the signs do not conform to the BPA code of practice. 

The operator has provided machine data to show that a payment for up to 4 hours was purchased for the vehicle, however, the motorist has remained for 5 hours 28 minutes. The appellant has not provided any evidence to show that sufficient payment was made for the vehicle during this stay. 

It is the responsibility of the motorist to make sure they are aware of the terms and conditions of the car park before deciding to remain. As they have remained, they have accepted the terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence, I can see that the motorist has parked in the car park and has failed to make a valid payment. As they have failed to make a valid payment, the PCN has been issued. 

As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Does the landowner contract actually mention both Ltd companies?  

dfdandan

No it’s because I paid by cash so didn’t have proof that I paid. Also that’s it now I can’t appeal anymore. Wish I had of just paid it now, would of saved money. Thanks anyway

Umkomaas

You don't have to pay a penny unless/until a Judge tells you. 

Please respond to @Coupon-mad's question, as should this go to court, the answer to it could be pivotal. 

D_P_Dance

A loss at PoPLA is of no consequence.  Many of the adjudicators they employ  know less about parking law that some of the grey beards on here.  

Umkomaas

D_P_Dance said:

A loss at PoPLA is of no consequence.  Many of the adjudicators they employ  know less about parking law that some of the grey beards on here.  

Made me chuckle!