PCN from Brittania parking believed not POFA compliant

Glennyboyy

Hello all

This is my first post on here and I’m hoping for some confirmation following my reading of the ‘newbies’ thread which is monumentally comprehensive.
I thought I’d post due to the fact that many of the threads shown are quite old now and in case anything in the law has changed.
I’ll keep it brief as possible.
I have received 2 PCN’s as ‘Keeper’ of the vehicle due to my car being parked in excess of the 2hr free parking at a local Waitrose store. Both times were a Sunday afternoon and expiry was either following the car park closing after parking, or the car park already being closed when the car was parked up.
It appears the PCN /NTK is NOT compliant with POFA wording requirements, as there is no mention of POFA. There is also no mention of land authority which I believe is also required.
The driver is unknown to Britannia parking and has not been disclosed.
I can provide more detail if required about signage or anything else, but will just stick to these basics initially.
I look forward to hearing from you wise people on this topic, to hopefully provide more confidence in making a POPLA appeal once my appeal to Britannia no doubt gets rejected. I have stated basically to Britannia that they have not complied with mandatory requirements under POFA. Both PCN’s also were not received by me until after 14 days from the alleged offence date (no date stamp or recorded delivery) although I note from reading threads ‘it is presumed the NTK will be received 2 days after the offence date’. This was certainly NOT the case being Christmas period.

Umkomaas

Neither NtK is PoFA compliant, neither contains the mandatory 9(2)(f) warning. One definitely fails on meeting the time limits for the NtK to be 'given' (the one for the 05/12 PCN); depending on whether Christmas Eve is a Bank Holiday (I don't think it is), the other NtK (12/12 PCN) just scrapes in, but still fails on the warning. 

Separate initial appeal for each, with final paragraph to detail the failure(s) of each NtK to meet PoFA requirements for Britannia to hold the RK liable. 

Glennyboyy

Thank you Umkomaas for your quick reply. So I am now confident with regards to the lack of mandatory 9(2)(f) warning on the NtK for both.
With regards to the NtK to be ‘given’ are you suggesting that POPLA would consider this was ‘given’ 2 days following the ‘date of the notice’ as shown in the NtK? Therefore the 19th Dec (being the 14th day following the alleged offence of the 5th) and 24th Dec (being the 12th day following the alleged offence of the 12th). Does the day of the offence count as the ‘first’ day of 14 do you know?
The NtK were both sent via ‘franked’ post with no date shown on the envelope, but there is a printed code with some numbers - would it be worth trying to confirm with the Post Office what date these we’re therefore processed? (Assuming they keep such records)

Also, in any defence to POPLA, is it also worth mentioning the signage in the car park? Full description of parking requirements only available on a board by the store entrance (with terms & conditions in very small font at the base - see attached image) rather than at the car park entrance, and in a location where you do not need to pass this to be able to park. By the time the expiry of parking was due, the store was closed and it was now dark.
Other signs in the car park are vague and just mention reading the main sign.

Finally, does Britannia need to stipulate they have the permission of the land owner to operate & charge fines to users of the car park? As I cannot see this specifically documented anywhere either.

Thank you for all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

The dates are irrelevant.  Forget them.  Why even look at dates when you have NTKs that fail on wording?  No 9(2)f warning.  Job done.

And of course you should also use the other template points from the POPLA section (post #3) of the Newbies thread.

Glennyboyy

Coupon-mad - thank you for your reply. Yes I get your point totally….. but being the first time I’ve ever been set to contest one of these PCN’s, I just wanted any slight thing I could use in my favour.

And yes absolutely, I will utilise the other template points from the Newbies thread.

Out of curiosity, why is it likely that a company such as Britannia don’t use the specific wording of the 9(2)(f) warning? If it’s just a case of including it in the NtK surely that would be easy. Or is it likely that they are totally unable/unwilling to follow the requirements of 9(2)(f)?

KeithP

Glennyboyy said:

Coupon-mad - thank you for your reply. Yes I get your point totally….. but being the first time I’ve ever been set to contest one of these PCN’s, I just wanted any slight thing I could use in my favour.

And yes absolutely, I will utilise the other template points from the Newbies thread.

Out of curiosity, why is it likely that a company such as Britannia don’t use the specific wording of the 9(2)(f) warning? If it’s just a case of including it in the NtK surely that would be easy. Or is it likely that they are totally unable/unwilling to follow the requirements of 9(2)(f)?

Another option might be that they get enough people terrified and paying up as soon as they see a PCN of any sort that it isn't worth the effort of refining things.

Coupon-mad

They do usually use a POFA version.

In your case I reckon you got lucky due to the holiday season!  I think they were pushed for time and realised one was late and the other might not scrape in due to Xmas.  So they are not allowed to use POFA wording in that case.

D_P_Dance

I wouldnventure tha the T&C at the bottom of that sign are unfair in consumer contracts under the CRA 2015, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Glennyboyy

D_P_Dance said:

I wouldnventure tha the T&C at the bottom of that sign are unfair in consumer contracts under the CRA 2015, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Yes indeed - thank you for the link. I have already done some research with regards to T&C’s ‘font size’ and this was also to be another of my defences to POPLA.

I have just been thinking further & looking at the original parking sign again - so this says the car park closes 30 mins after the store closes. On the days of the alleged ‘breaches’ the car park would then close at 16:30 (Sunday) whereas expiry of parking occurred after this time (and in fact one of the days the vehicle was parked up when the car park was already ‘closed’). Therefore my question is ‘would an alleged contract even be in place after the car park has closed’? I cannot see anything on the sign (even in the tiny T&C’s) stating that the terms of parking apply 24hrs/day.

Coupon-mad

If the sign doesn't say or is ambiguous, then the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail.  As per the CRA 2015.

Glennyboyy

Coupon-mad said:

If the sign doesn't say or is ambiguous, then the interpretation that mist favours the consumer must prevail.  As per the CRA 2015.

Awesome. Thanks @Coupon-mad.
Apologies for all the questions - first time doing this compared to you ‘professionals’. I’m certainly learning a lot as this continues.
Funnily enough I had the ‘final reminder’ letter today from Britannia for the first PCN - no doubt other one to follow shortly.
One thing I’ve not yet done (read in the Newbies thread this should be done) is approach the store manager & seek their views on my situation. I am expecting them to say ‘it’s nothing to do with them and all done by the PE contractor’ but maybe they’ll say they have no issue with my parking after hours when the store is closed seeing as the car park is always empty.

I assume the PE also have a list of ‘employees’ cars that do not get penalised seeing as some are there well into the evening for shelf-stacking. Wondering if I can cheekily get onto this list if I speak to the manager politely seeing as I’ve only ever exceeded parking after store closure.