(BRITANNIA PARKING) DCB Legal turned Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Please show us what you've drafted off your own bat.

POPLA don't read forums. Perfectly safe to show us your draft.

UncleThomasCobley

WontPayAPenny said:

Quick question, I have completed my draft, but is it a smart idea to post it here for critiquing? I am unsure if POPLA check websites such as these for what would seem to them as copied and pasted. Or would it be the case that it is irrelevant whether or not it was copied and pasted, so long as the appeal is relevant to my case. 

Don't worry. As long as you were a tin foil hat, you'll be fine. 

POPLA probably go through hundreds, if not thousands of appeal every day. Unregulated private parking companies issue around 30,000+ charges a day. Assume that 50% of those are from BPA scammers. Even if only 10% of the BPA ones are appealed to POPLA, that would be 150 POPLA appeals a day that the assessors need to get through. I am being very conservative with the figure here.

If you imagine a dark room somewhere secret, with rows of "men-in-black" types on computers, scouring not only this forum bit the interweb as a whole, looking for evidence they can use to thwart their roboclaims... do you see where I'm heading with this?

WontPayAPenny

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us what you've drafted off your own bat (not back).

POPLA don't read forums. Perfectly safe to show us your draft.

Tomayto tomarto. Cool it’ll be up here. Just gonna remove personal info first

Umkomaas

1. Britannia Parking has provided photographs they contend were at the car park also claiming that were clear and legible. However, it must be considered that these photographs are dated over a year ago on the 17/5/2022, 16/6/2022 and 22/6/2022. It is also clear that the branches and foliage that would have obscured the view of the signs had just been trimmed. According to part 19.3 of the BPA code of practice, signs must be conspicuous and legible. I have provided more recent photographs that clearly detail their illegibility and their inconspicuousness. It is Britannia Parking’s responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the BPA’s Code of Practice, but its is evident in the recent photographs that I have provided that they have not complied with this. 19.7 of the BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP) has been violated, as they have not displayed the BPA AOS logo at all sites, further questioning the legitimacy of BPA’s right to operate at the site in question. Many of the signs that Britannia Parking proposes were at the site at the time in question would certainly not have been visible at the time that the alleged contravention took place. For example, many of the reminder signs that are said to be present either do not exist or are inconspicuous due to the positioning of them behind car spaces that are likely to have been occupied at the time of the alleged contravention due to the small size of the car park, as it was in the case of my photographs. The entrance sign, as shown in the photograph is certainly not visible to entering drivers, as it is a one way car park, thereby confirming that the signs are not visible from all reasonable orientations, i.e. the road. As cars approaching from the west side, can enter at higher speeds, the signs do not account for this. Exit signs to remind drivers of the alleged contract they would’ve entered are entirely not visible, as they are facing the wrong way completely.

Do your photos have dates embedded and showing in them, as we have seen POPLA disregard them as evidence on many occasions?

Coupon-mad

I've just seen a recent Britannia non-POFA worded NTK off-forum, and there's a lot about it that makes it clearly non-compliant.

Nothing about the keeper being liable.  No attempt to use the 9(2)f wording.  If yours is the same then say that.

WontPayAPenny

Coupon-mad said:

I've just seen a recent Britannia non-POFA worded NTK off-forum, and there's a lot about it that makes it clearly non-compliant.

Nothing about the keeper being liable.  No attempt to use the 9(2)f wording.  If yours is the same then say that.

That’s what I was saying beforehand. I’ve had PCNs before from these guys and they have been non-compliant in regards to 9(2)(f). I have double checked and this is compliant with 9(2)(f), but is not compliant with 9(2)(e). It seems like they pick and choose what bit of legislation they comply with.

Even though people have told me that they seem to be compliant these days (Britannia parking) I can say, with absolute certainty that it is not compliant with 9(2)(e).

WontPayAPenny

Umkomaas said:

1. Britannia Parking has provided photographs they contend were at the car park also claiming that were clear and legible. However, it must be considered that these photographs are dated over a year ago on the 17/5/2022, 16/6/2022 and 22/6/2022. It is also clear that the branches and foliage that would have obscured the view of the signs had just been trimmed. According to part 19.3 of the BPA code of practice, signs must be conspicuous and legible. I have provided more recent photographs that clearly detail their illegibility and their inconspicuousness. It is Britannia Parking’s responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the BPA’s Code of Practice, but its is evident in the recent photographs that I have provided that they have not complied with this. 19.7 of the BPA Code of Practice (BPA CoP) has been violated, as they have not displayed the BPA AOS logo at all sites, further questioning the legitimacy of BPA’s right to operate at the site in question. Many of the signs that Britannia Parking proposes were at the site at the time in question would certainly not have been visible at the time that the alleged contravention took place. For example, many of the reminder signs that are said to be present either do not exist or are inconspicuous due to the positioning of them behind car spaces that are likely to have been occupied at the time of the alleged contravention due to the small size of the car park, as it was in the case of my photographs. The entrance sign, as shown in the photograph is certainly not visible to entering drivers, as it is a one way car park, thereby confirming that the signs are not visible from all reasonable orientations, i.e. the road. As cars approaching from the west side, can enter at higher speeds, the signs do not account for this. Exit signs to remind drivers of the alleged contract they would’ve entered are entirely not visible, as they are facing the wrong way completely.

Do your photos have dates embedded and showing in them, as we have seen POPLA disregard them as evidence on many occasions?

I was actually going to ask this. I’ve seen a similar conversation and I’m in the same sort of predicament. Do I just embed it myself (i.e. I caption and write the particular date and time in the caption)? It seems a bit silly seeing as I could put any day I fancy, but then arguably they could too. Or shall I send the picture and a screenshot of the same picture with the meta-data of the date and time side by side. I was planning to do the latter as it seems more genuine to me.

Coupon-mad

I'd do the latter.

Is the 92f wording on the back of your one?

WontPayAPenny

Coupon-mad said:

I'd do the latter.

Is the 92f wording on the back of your one?

I’ll do the latter. 

On the front, as on the pic posted on the first page.

Coupon-mad

Ah - interesting.  The one I have off-forum doesn't have the POFA paragraph.