Britannia parking no planning permission

Fruitcake

Not having planning permission for pole mounted scameras won't be entertained by the unregulated parking industry, but it should still be mentioned in your PoPLA appeal. The fact they admit they have made a retrospective application is proof they did not have planning permission at the time of the alleged event.

Not having advertising consent for signs greater than 0.3m² is a criminal offence, and a breach of Para 12 of the PoFA 2012, so should also be included.
Signs also act as the "fair processing notice" under DPA/GDPR. Illegal signs are unfair, and cannot convey a fair processing notice. 
Reference, The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent cannot be retrospectively given, and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.
Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

Do mention it all, but don't expect PoPLA assessors who recently had trouble counting to 14 to understand or allow it.

If you are certain you did not reveal the driver's identity, then you should refute the PPC's allegation that you were driving. Quote/highlight your initial appeal and state that this proves you did not identify the driver, and for the avoidance of doubt, state that the keeper was not the driver.
Follow this by lack of advertising consent being a PoFA para 12 failure, then state that since the NTK was not PoFA compliant, and the keeper was not the driver, the appeal must be allowed.

Being unable to pay is a "frustration of contract". Britannia has stated in their response to your initial appeal that the cameras were working properly, but they have not denied that the PDT machine was inoperative. Showing another PDT on a map held on a computer in an office does not help a driver at the time of the alleged event. If the operator wanted to act in a fair manner they should have a note on each machine detailing the location of other machines. 

1505grandad

"If you are certain you did not reveal the driver's identity, then you should refute the PPC's allegation that you were driving. Quote/highlight your initial appeal and state that this proves you did not identify the driver, and for the avoidance of doubt, state that the keeper was (not) the driver."

@Fruitcake -  should be a "not" there?

Fruitcake

1505grandad said:

"If you are certain you did not reveal the driver's identity, then you should refute the PPC's allegation that you were driving. Quote/highlight your initial appeal and state that this proves you did not identify the driver, and for the avoidance of doubt, state that the keeper was (not) the driver."

@Fruitcake -  should be a "not" there?

Quite right, thanks.

Linny22

Fruitcake said:

Not having planning permission for pole mounted scameras won't be entertained by the unregulated parking industry, but it should still be mentioned in your PoPLA appeal. The fact they admit they have made a retrospective application is proof they did not have planning permission at the time of the alleged event.

Not having advertising consent for signs greater than 0.3m² is a criminal offence, and a breach of Para 12 of the PoFA 2012, so should also be included.
Signs also act as the "fair processing notice" under DPA/GDPR. Illegal signs are unfair, and cannot convey a fair processing notice. 
Reference, The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent cannot be retrospectively given, and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.
Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

Do mention it all, but don't expect PoPLA assessors who recently had trouble counting to 14 to understand or allow it.

If you are certain you did not reveal the driver's identity, then you should refute the PPC's allegation that you were driving. Quote/highlight your initial appeal and state that this proves you did not identify the driver, and for the avoidance of doubt, state that the keeper was not the driver.
Follow this by lack of advertising consent being a PoFA para 12 failure, then state that since the NTK was not PoFA compliant, and the keeper was not the driver, the appeal must be allowed.

Being unable to pay is a "frustration of contract". Britannia has stated in their response to your initial appeal that the cameras were working properly, but they have not denied that the PDT machine was inoperative. Showing another PDT on a map held on a computer in an office does not help a driver at the time of the alleged event. If the operator wanted to act in a fair manner they should have a note on each machine detailing the location of other machines. 

Thank you so much! 

Even on the map I can only see one paying machine so I am unsure where that other one is 🤔

Fruitcake

Unfortunately Google Streetview has no images after 2011, and the camera car didn't go into the second part of the car park. I'm not sure when the aerial/satellite view was taken, but there doesn't appear to be a second pay machine.

State that there was only one, which wasn't working and therefore caused a frustration of contract.
Put the PPC to strict proof there was a second machine at the material location, and that it was working at the material time.

Other methods of payment may have been on offer, but it is a fact that some mobile 'phone networks have better coverage that others. It is therefore a fact that some motorists who use one network provider will have had no problem making payments by 'phone, whereas other motorisst using other 'phone networks will have found it impossible to pay by 'phone.

Coupon-mad

Linny22 said: 

Even on the map I can only see one paying machine so I am unsure where that other one is 🤔

Nor can I...perish the thought they are misleading the court! Or is it just POPLA?!