HELP REJECTION OF INTERNAL APPEALS BRITTANIA PARKING

WontPayAPenny

Hi guys,

Recently, a few Brittania Parking PCNs came through the door. Appealed as the keeper for the 3 PCNs as they were not PoFA compliant. About a month later they reject them (of course). Safe to ignore and not bother with POPLA? I really don’t have the time or energy for these lot, seems like they’ve changed their tune seeing as they used to !!!!!! their pants once PoFA was mentioned and they’d let you off.

Obviously don’t ignore LBCs or Claim Forms but anything else? And do brittania parking even take people to court?

Fruitcake

Using the template points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES shouldn't take too long for you to knock up a PoPLA appeal. If you win at PoPLA, it's a lot easier than dealing with court claims, but otherwise it won't hurt if you don't appeal further.

Plan A is still the best option though; complaints to the landowner and your MP.

patient_dream

Of course Britannia will reject .... they need the money before the government clampdown

Coupon-mad

WontPayAPenny said:

Hi guys,

Recently, a few Brittania Parking PCNs came through the door. Appealed as the keeper for the 3 PCNs as they were not PoFA compliant. About a month later they reject them (of course). Safe to ignore and not bother with POPLA? I really don’t have the time or energy for these lot, seems like they’ve changed their tune seeing as they used to !!!!!! their pants once PoFA was mentioned and they’d let you off.

Obviously don’t ignore LBCs or Claim Forms but anything else? And do brittania parking even take people to court?

 

These are not safe to ignore.  Britannia will sue.  Yes, they are litigious these days.

What made you decide that the NTKs are non-POFA?  Britannia generally use POFA NTKs these days.

WontPayAPenny

Fruitcake said:

Using the template points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES shouldn't take too long for you to knock up a PoPLA appeal. If you win at PoPLA, it's a lot easier than dealing with court claims, but otherwise it won't hurt if you don't appeal further.

Plan A is still the best option though; complaints to the landowner and your MP.

Ok will probably give it a go in these cases. Landowner in this case is tricky. It’s just a standalone car park, and so reckon it’s the council that owns it? If so who do I write to or how do I find out who it is that owns it, as it is not a car park for a retail park or superstore etc.? ‘The motorist’ parked in a different but nearby constituency. Does this mean I write to my MP or the one I parked in? 

These are not safe to ignore.  Britannia will sue.  Yes, they are litigious these days.

What made you decide that the NTKs are non-POFA?  Britannia generally use POFA NTKs these days.

I mean should I post a redacted picture of the relevant text that they had in their notice? Many companies I have realised have begun to structure their letters in this updated way. Although they now mention that they are “now serving this notice under PoFA 2012”, it still isn’t compliant. 

Now, copied and pasted from legislation.gov.uk website for PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e):

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

So where is the error? Well they have invited me, the keeper, to pay the unpaid parking charges or to notify the creditor of the name of the driver etc. But they have not stated that they do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service from the driver. This is different to older PCNs, as they were non-complaint with PoFA in other ways such as with Paragraph 9(2)(f) BUT they had used the language (through direct quote), “As we do not know the name of the driver and current address of service…”. This quite clearly does not have this statement in any way shape or form, but predatorily works off the assumption that the keeper is the driver.

Yes, they may have implied that they do not know by inviting me to say who the driver was (e.g. if you were not the driver at the time, please inform us…), but they have to do so anyways under 9(2)(e)(i). They cannot work off implications if they want to pursue me as the keeper, as PoFA is set in stone for this reason, right?

I can definitely see the lack of said language and surely you guys can too.

P.S. all three are with this structure and info on reverse is irrelevant appeals info 

Coupon-mad

Yes I can see that, but will POPLA?!

Britannia don't operate for Councils so that's definitely privately owned land.

WontPayAPenny

Coupon-mad said:

Yes I can see that, but will POPLA?!

Britannia don't operate for Councils so that's definitely privately owned land.

I mean, do I have to spell it out for them like I’ve done on this forum? It seems quite clear cut to me. When I appeal these, will I be having to do this as 3 separate applications with 3 different adjudicators?

If it’s privately owned land, what does that mean to me

Coupon-mad

Yes you'd have to spell it out.

Fruitcake

A few years ago several PoPLA assessors, and even senior assessors, had to be retrained because they couldn't count to 14 and were rejecting appeals even though the NTKs were not PoFA compliant.

The answer to your question therefore is, yes, you will have to spell everything out in simple language.

You will have to make three separate appeals, but they can be identical so once you have produced the first one you just copy it for the other two.

Show us your draft appeals before you submit them. These should include all the standard points where relevant,

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Non PoFA compliant NTK
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures 
Anything else relevant

Do check the name of the PPC on the signs against the name of the PPC on the NTK. There are two separate companies with Britannia in the name and sometimes the one forgets which one is operating at the site. If the names are different (even if they are similar) then you highlight that as a separate point since a contract is formed with the company named on the signs, not with a different company.

Being privately owned means you make a standard appeal. If the land was council owned you would have additional appeal points that are not relevant when the land is privately owned.

WontPayAPenny

Fruitcake said:

A few years ago several PoPLA assessors, and even senior assessors, had to be retrained because they couldn't count to 14 and were rejecting appeals even though the NTKs were not PoFA compliant.

The answer to your question therefore is, yes, you will have to spell everything out in simple language.

You will have to make three separate appeals, but they can be identical so once you have produced the first one you just copy it for the other two.

Show us your draft appeals before you submit them. These should include all the standard points where relevant,

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Non PoFA compliant NTK
Inadequate signage
BPA CoP failures 
Anything else relevant

Do check the name of the PPC on the signs against the name of the PPC on the NTK. There are two separate companies with Britannia in the name and sometimes the one forgets which one is operating at the site. If the names are different (even if they are similar) then you highlight that as a separate point since a contract is formed with the company named on the signs, not with a different company.

Being privately owned means you make a standard appeal. If the land was council owned you would have additional appeal points that are not relevant when the land is privately owned.

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you'd have to spell it out.

Cool I’ll get started on a draft. Please do critique as harshly as possible

Managed to take a few pics of site and pics of the signs that they sent over. They are all either hiding behind cars or parallel with the drivers direction of travel (small one way open car park in U shape) and hidden behind overgrown bushes. Will add this too

Thanks!

WontPayAPenny

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.

P.S. It was all drafted off my own back, while still mentioning the POPLA Appeal Points mentioned previously.

Another question. Upon closer analysis of Britannia Parking’s response to me (the rejection that I received from them), one of the lines mentioned this:

“We have authorisation to act on behalf of the landowners, ensuring that the terms and conditions are adhered to. We have full authority to issue Parking Charge Notices on their behalf. You are not entitled to business sensitive information, it will only be supplied at court, as evidence and not before.”

If they follow through on this, is it likely that I will be successful? Based on the successful POPLA appeals thread, where the operator has not supplied evidence of landowner authority, POPLA have been unable to confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. Golden ticket?? 

I cannot lie, I definitely undermined the weight of evidence of landowner authority before reading these decisions