Britannia parking PCN issued

g2d

That’s good to know, thanks. I will wait and see what comes back.

g2d

As expected, Britannia rejected my appeal without any reference to my specific grounds for appeal. I've been sent a POPLA code.

I've drafted an appeal to POPLA below. I've included in [square brackets] where I will attach specific evidence to the appeal.

Are there any additional points I should raise with the appeal (I see many generic appeals include a point about confirming a valid contract to operate from the landowner)? Are the points I raise strong/worthwhile?

Many thanks.

Ground 1: Failure to Deliver the Notice to Keeper Within 14 Days (PoFA 2012 Breach)

Under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), where no Notice to Driver was issued, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention.

• The alleged contravention occurred on: 19/04/2025
• The NtK was received on: 09/05/2025

This represents a 20-day delay, meaning the NtK was delivered 6 days outside the statutory 14-day window.

PoFA requires not just that the NtK be sent, but that it be delivered. “Delivered” is defined in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as two working days after posting unless otherwise proven.

For the NtK to be presumed delivered by 03/05/2025 (the 14th day), it must have been posted no later than 01/05/2025.

The appellant therefore puts Britannia Parking to strict proof of the actual date of posting.

A printed “issue date” alone is not valid proof. Acceptable forms of evidence would include:

• A certificate of posting
• An envelope with a Royal Mail franking mark
• Independent postal records showing the item was processed on time

If Britannia cannot supply such evidence, the NtK must be deemed non-compliant, and keeper liability does not apply.

Ground 2: Contradictory Appeal Instructions – Reference to “Independent Appeals Service” and POPLA

The PCN issued by Britannia Parking refers to both POPLA and a capitalised “Independent Appeals Service.” (Proper noun, "the Independent Appeals Service", in contrast to common noun "an independent appeals service") This is misleading, as “Independent Appeals Service” is the formal name of IAS, the appeal body used by the Independent Parking Community (IPC) - not the BPA. A Google search of Independent Appeals Service returns a top result of https://www.theias.org/.

As a BPA member, Britannia must only refer to POPLA.

This breaches the BPA Code of Practice, Section 23.2, which states:

"Whenever you issue a parking charge notice motorists must first use your procedures for resolving appeals, before being able to refer them to an "independent appeal service".  You must tell motorists at what stage the independent appeals service becomes available"

By referencing two bodies - POPLA and “the Independent Appeals Service” - the PCN creates confusion and undermines procedural clarity. It violates BPA requirements for transparency and accurate guidance to motorists.

[I will attach a photo of the PCN with the specific sentence highlighted]

Ground 3: Operator Has Not Provided Evidence of a Breach – Including BPA Code of Practice Section 17 (Keying Errors)

In the initial appeal, the appellant explained that the driver entered the correct Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) at the terminal to validate a 1-hour free stay. Britannia Parking failed to address or disprove this and did not provide any evidence showing that:

• No VRN was entered at all, or
• The VRN entered was significantly incorrect

As the burden of proof rests with the operator, this failure to provide terminal logs or ANPR/VRN comparisons makes the charge unsubstantiated.

This situation falls under the British Parking Association Code of Practice, Section 17, which governs keying errors:

17.4: “You must have appropriate procedures in place to prevent an inappropriate Parking Charge Notice being issued as a result of a keying error.”

17.5: Minor keying errors (e.g., one incorrect digit, transposed letters) should not result in a charge or must be cancelled on appeal. Major errors may justify a reduced charge only after the operator reviews the circumstances.

There is no evidence that Britannia followed any of these requirements. They have not:

• Checked for partial or near matches
• Investigated the possibility of an innocent or minor error
• Followed the BPA’s prescribed process for assessing keying errors

The BPA Code clearly states that "operators, motorists, and landowners all share responsibility to ensure that trivial and inadvertent errors do not result in unfair penalties". Britannia’s disregard of this guidance further invalidates the charge.

Ground 4: Long History of Lawful, Compliant Use of This Car Park

The keeper has a substantial history of lawful and proper use of this car park, with multiple previously printed tickets showing correct VRN input over time. The vehicle has been parked here weekly for an extended period, and the driver has consistently used the terminal correctly.

This regular and correct usage makes it extremely unlikely that the driver failed to enter the VRN properly on the date in question. If a valid entry was not recorded, it is far more likely due to a terminal fault, a system error, or at most, a minor keying error, which the BPA Code advises against penalising.

This usage record supports the argument that there was no intention to breach the terms, and the operator’s actions are disproportionate and unjustified.

[I will attach photos of previous tickets to the appeal]

Conclusion and Request for Cancellation

In light of the above, the appellant respectfully asks that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Britannia Parking to cancel the charge on the following grounds:

1. The NtK was delivered outside the 14-day window required by PoFA
2. The PCN contains contradictory and misleading appeal instructions
3. The operator has not proven any breach of contract, and failed to follow the BPA’s rules regarding keying errors
4. The driver has a long, consistent record of compliant use at this car park, making a breach unlikely

This Parking Charge Notice is procedurally flawed, evidentially unsupported, and contrary to BPA guidance and statutory law.

Yours faithfully,

g2d

I've realised I may have been using an old version of the BPA code of practice as a reference for my appeal to POPLA.

Can somebody please clarify which version of BPA code of practice I should be using? Is it the Single Code of Practice found at this website https://www.britishparking.co.uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring

Direct link here: https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

This is confusing because it states that the deadline for all sites to comply with all aspects of the Single Code of Practice is 31 December 2026, however it also states "This version will be referred to in relation to any issues of non-compliance taking place up to but not including 17 February 2025."

Should I actually be holding Britannia to compliance against the last working version of the Approved Operator Code of Practice Version 9, Feburary 2024 here:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf

Many thanks in advance for your assistance.

Best regards.

Coupon-mad

It's the one that applied on the parking date.

g2d

Thanks again coupon-mad - I will tweak in accordance with the new COP and repost later.

What is your view on the various current objections raised in my appeal - are they all worthwhile keeping?

In Britannia's appeal response they provided no evidence to refute my claim that I'm not liable for the charge - I've addressed this point in my current version.
 
Similarly they claimed "We meet all signage requirements under the BPA's Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions", again without providing evidence of this - I think I can raise another objection point on this holding them to strict proof and providing evidence that their signs do indeed meet the requirements.

Lastly, I wanted to know whether its worthwhile raising the "land owner" and "permission to operate" "point that seems to be raised in many of the example POPLA appeals I've looked at - is this worthwhile in my case or do I have enough to go on already?

Coupon-mad

Include it all and the landowner authority standard point every time. You never know, the contract might be in the name of the wrong Britannia group company (has happened).

I don't really bother with POPLA in case for my relatives/friends, but give it a go.

g2d

Thanks, I'll complete the POPLA appeal later when I have more time and post it up here for information.

g2d

Hi, i'm just about to submit my appeal to POPLA but i'm a bit unsure about the contact details on the POPLA site. I've written this appeal on behalf of the registered keeper - her name is on all the correspondence with Britannia. POPLA site asks whether I'm submitting on somebody else's behalf. Should I submit a written authority letter with the appeal (i.e. a signed letter acting on her behalf? She is the registered keeper but is not the driver)

I just want to be sure i don't put my foot in it and prejudice my appeal process (and potentially legal process if it comes to that).

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

POPLA site asks whether I'm submitting on somebody else's behalf.

ALWAYS tick 'no'. Far too complicated!

Do it in the name of the keeper. That's how I do these for friends. You are not the appellant. Your name features nowhere except you can provide your own email so that you can be the one to keep tabs on progress/outcome.

Are you not planning to show us the draft in case we can help fine tune it and remove stuff that has no legs at POPLA?

g2d

OK - thanks, that clears that up!

My appeal is deliberately long and a bit convoluted to attempt to tie POPLA and Britannia up in detail, so I don't want to use up too much of anybody's time.

I've shared the submission folder here anyway in case you do find the time to comment. I still have 18 days to submit the appeal so can afford to wait a little longer.

Edit: apologies to anybody who attempted to access the previous link, I uploaded and immediately realised I'd uploaded an unredacted version of my submission pack. The below link now contains the redacted submission pack.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vFEsQH3GyMavQOatGB5fHfCNxWQLihKJ?usp=sharing

Best regards.