Britannia POPLA Appeal – Unsuccessful

zeljko

Britannia POPLA Appeal – Unsuccessful

Hi,

Just received from POPLA that my Appeal was Unsuccessful. And need simple advice.

I have used standard response from the Newbies thread.

 

1) There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary of the venue
2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
4) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
5) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
6) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
7) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
8) No Planning Permission from Tower Hamlet Borough Council for Pole-Mounted ANPR Cameras and no Advertising Consent for signage

My case is following few same cases from forum related to difference of company numbers Britannia.

I got opportunity to comment evidence from Britannia via POPLA website.

This was my respond:

Dear POPLA,
The operator has failed to show that it has landowner authority to issue PCNs, and has instead produced a contract only with another company.  
1:  The landowner contract only authorises a Limited company called Britannia Parking SERVICES Ltd, company number 08187238:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08187238
2:  The signs and Notice to Keeper in this case (on the footer) state that the operator is Britannia Parking Group Ltd, T/A ''Britannia Parking'', a completely different legal entity with Company number 08182990:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08182990
Even if the operator says 'Britannia Parking are part of the Britannia Parking Group Ltd' then all they are doing is telling you what Companies House already states in (2) above.  But the landowner contract is only with (1).  A Limited company cannot be part of, 'trade as' or purport to be the same legal entity as another. That Ltd companies share Directors is irrelevant and if in doubt, please refer this to Craig Ineson, your POPLA Sector Expert, before adjudicating this one because it is seriously deficient.
POPLA has surely come across this before with Britannia, because the courts have (e.g. JUDGE BISHOP - CASE NUMBER F1DP7C25 on 10/1/2020 at Reading Court, held that there was no evidence of the authority of the Claimant, Company number 08182990. 
In that case Britannia covered up the footer on the NTK which hid the issue, but it was exposed by the Defendant).
While I note that the names are similar, I would expect the operator to provide supporting evidence that they are authorised to operate in this car park and provide evidence to support their claim. I do not consider that the operator has adequately done this. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly.

I though this will be enough to win case but look like I was wrong.

POPLA respond for different Company number:

They dispute that the operator has a valid contract for managing the site. The operator has provided a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner for the management of the site. While this document is redacted it states that Britannia Parking Group limited or its parent companies as permitted to manage the site. The same name is repeated on the signage, the contract and the copies of the PCN I have been provided with. The appellant has not provided any evidence which convinces me that on the balance of probability the operators contact is invalid.

Full respond in attachment below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a4gIemyt08ufTqZYPEZ_YSMy7VLLotL_/view?usp=sharing

Could you let me know if this point with landowner authority has different Company number is still valid for court procedures?

D_P_Dance

Non registration of a VRN is regarded by some/many judges as very trivial, read this

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

If there is a discrepancy between the name of the company posted on the signs, and the name of the company making the claim, it could  be fatal for them. 

Have you complained to your MP?

zeljko

Copy of refusal:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a4gIemyt08ufTqZYPEZ_YSMy7VLLotL_/view?usp=sharing

landowner contract: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bphdVDc1xAt_4jPSYFi0Lcxr61R8VtGp/view?usp=sharing

 Signage used on parking

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L6-hv_YQl3DeW6lSRE3OWMalYM7I44BO/view?usp=sharing

PCN - NTK

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ha9WRQH6gEuI6nMF0LspMKQA05k9mn_S/view?usp=sharing

zeljko

D_P_Dance said:

Non registration of a VRN is regarded by some/many judges as very trivial, read this

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

If there is a discrepancy between the name of the company posted on the signs, and the name of the company making the claim, it could  be fatal for them. 

Have you complained to your MP?

Hi,
thank you for help. I have post proof to show discrepancy between the name of the company posted on the signs, and the name of the company making the claim.
Still do not understand why POPLA dismiss this 

Le_Kirk

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.  You just have to wait for the deluge of debt collector letters and possibly/finally a letter before/of claim then a claim form from CCBC.

zeljko

Le_Kirk said:

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.  You just have to wait for the deluge of debt collector letters and possibly/finally a letter before/of claim then a claim form from CCBC.

Ah, yes waiting finally letter before/of claim.
But you agree that discrepancy between the name of the company posted on the signs, and the name of the company making the claim is a valid point?

Le_Kirk

zeljko said:

Le_Kirk said:

POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.  You just have to wait for the deluge of debt collector letters and possibly/finally a letter before/of claim then a claim form from CCBC.

Ah, yes waiting finally letter before/of claim.
But you agree that discrepancy between the name of the company posted on the signs, and the name of the company making the claim is a valid point?

There are quite a few posts about similar situations re Britannia/Britannia Group/Britannia Holdings and also VCS/Excel.   Search the forum.

nicestrawb

BRITANNIA PARKING GROUP LIMITED are listed as a person with significant control over BRITANNIA PARKING SERVICES LIMITED so my guess is that they can do this, but others might know better than me.

Umkomaas

 Can't seem to see it, but what was the date of issue of the NtK?

zeljko

Umkomaas said:

 Can't seem to see it, but what was the date of issue of the NtK?

Date of Notice is 10.12.2020. Date of contravention 30.11.2020.

beamerguy

zeljko said:

Umkomaas said:

 Can't seem to see it, but what was the date of issue of the NtK?

Date of Notice is 10.12.2020. Date of contravention 30.11.2020.

Don't concern yourself about POPLA, they are failures and outdated dinosaurs, similar to those who took them on ... the BPA

I have been involved with this Britannia sign saga, rejected by both POPLA and Britannia
The Judge had his own view and dismissed the case awarding £95 costs

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT ....
1: You will start receiving debt collector letters who will add £60.  These debt collectors are only circus clowns who pop out the sewers when instructed.  But, they are idiots, powerless and cannot take you to court despite what they say and they really do spout rubbish. IGNORE THEM

2: Britannia will then probably instruct a legal, normally BWLegal, who will include the inflated price with a stupid excuse to explain the fake add-on.  Nothing to worry about, easy to beat.

Don't consider paying them because it's a judge who decides.  Most judges see through the scam