Britannia Rejected POPLA Appeal

mpg286 · 21 January 2019 at 11:31AM

Having had a successful appeal against APCOA recently, I did the same for a Britannia ticket I unfairly received.
Long story short, the driver of the car didn’t realise that they had parked in a shopping area with a maximum stay and subsequently overstayed (through drinking too much coffee and chatting too much).
Appealed with a script which had previously been successful, taken from this forum. Unlike APCOA, they did not roll over at POPLA but rather contested it.

Here is the Unsuccessful judgement:

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name Safoora Sagheer
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked longer than the maximum period permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal such as: • A compliant notice to keeper was never served. • The signage in the car park is not prominent, clear or legible. • No evidence of landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. When it comes to parking on private land, a motorist accepts the terms and conditions of the site by parking their vehicle. The terms and conditions are stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park. The operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. The signs state “RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS & CONDITIONS APPLY AT ALL TIMES TO ALL VEHICLES. MAXIMUM STAY 2 HOURS. £100 Parking Charge Notice may be issued to all vehicles which: exceed the maximum stay period.” The car park in question is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 15:01pm and exited the site at 18:14pm. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of three hours and 13 minutes. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however, the onus is on the driver to ensure they do not exceed the maximum stay period at any time. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a valid contract which gives it the permissions to operate on the land in question. In the BPA Code of Practice, section 18.3 “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice also explains, that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand.” I consider that the photographic evidence show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA by displaying clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park in clear view to motorists. I note the appellant’s comments and their reason for parking at the site in question. However, in their appeal the appellant has not provided any evidence to support their submission. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions offered at the site. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. If the appellant suspected that the terms and conditions of the site could not be complied with, there would have been sufficient time to leave the site without entering into a contract with the operator. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site. I conclude that the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

Having looked at the forum, I see the next step is to ignore debt recovery and ultimately wait to see if they want to pursue in court?

My main question for this stage is: If I go to court and lose, what is the maximum I might be liable for (given the £100 fine)?

I know the general feeling is that I should win at court, but I want to understand the risk I am undertaking.

Umkomaas · 21 January 2019 at 11:47AM

My main question for this stage is: If I go to court and lose, what is the maximum I might be liable for (given the £100 fine)?

I know the general feeling is that I should win at court, but I want to understand the risk I am undertaking.

£100 parking charge
£25 court filing fee
£50 capped legal costs (if expended)
£25 court hearing fee (if it gets that far)
£200 in total.

But BWL, their low-rent solicitors, do attempt to slap in a few add-ons (~£60), but should be successfully argued against in court. Lose and pay up on time (usually within 1 month) and there's no CCJ. Win and the PPC is paying you half a day's pay/annual leave capped at £95 plus travel at 0.45 per mile and your parking cost for the hearing.

The 'general feeling is that I should win at court', is perhaps a little complacent and needs some qualification in the context that you would need to do a significant amount of research to understand the issues, how to develop a defence, a subsequent Witness Statement, collect and prepare evidence and then attend the county court (not essential, can be 'heard on the papers', but not recommended here).

Oh, and be lucky to have a clued up Judge for your hearing.

But all of this is probably 4-5 months away - if it gets to a court stage.

The_Deep · 21 January 2019 at 11:53AM

PoPLA is an industry poodle, and the whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and public ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers. .

mpg286 · 21 January 2019 at 11:56AM

Umkomaas wrote: »

£100 parking charge
£25 court filing fee
£50 capped legal costs (if expended)
£25 court hearing fee (if it gets that far)
£200 in total.

Thank-you for this, very informative.

Umkomaas wrote: »

The 'general feeling is that I should win at court', is perhaps a little complacent and needs some qualification in the context that you would need to do a significant amount of research to understand the issues, how to develop a defence, a subsequent Witness Statement, collect and prepare evidence and then attend the county court (not essential, can be 'heard on the papers', but not recommended here).

Yes, I was being a bit short. I will iron out the details if they take me to court. I do believe I have a decent case in that the signs are god awful, can't be seen when driving in, are behind the car (so can't be seen when reverse parking and walking away).

I have a second question: the first appeal we make has an item about the fact that they have no idea who is driving the car at the time of infringement. Is this still an aspect of my defence?

The_Deep · 21 January 2019 at 12:00PM

It is the gold medal winner. If they do not know this they have to try twice as hard.

Umkomaas · 21 January 2019 at 12:02PM

I do believe I have a decent case in that the signs are god awful, can't be seen when driving in, are behind the car (so can't be seen when reverse parking and walking away).

Do you have your own photos, taken in the same light conditions (if at night, no flash to be used). But you will need some where the written detail is clear as the sign is the purported contract between you and the PPC.

I have a second question: the first appeal we make has an item about the fact that they have no idea who is driving the car at the time of infringement. Is this still an aspect of my defence?

It's irrelevant if the PPC has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as they can legally pass liability to the registered keeper. POPLA seem to think they have - but do you?

beamerguy · 21 January 2019 at 12:06PM

POPLA is now just a dinosaur in appeals nowadays

I seem to recall that Safoora Sagheer has erred in other appeals in the past

Judges (well most of them), understand the scam and it ends up that POPLA don't have a clue

Just wait now ignoring the moron debt collectors that come your way
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74439905#Comment_74439905

Coupon-mad · 21 January 2019 at 12:28PM

Britannia can hold a keeper liable and you may well struggle as this is a retail park overstay of 2 hours free time (exactly like the Beavis case).

You would need to get lots of evidence that the signs are sparse & nothing like the prominent and clear signs held to be the case, in Beavis.

You won't have much else to go on, unless you can blow apa rt their 'legitimate interest' in pursuing the charge, by getting emails from the retail park Managers stating that they want the charge rescinded and do not support it.

I'd try that now, you never know, maybe they are fed up with complaints and will cancel it for you and are about to kick B out.

Even if they cannot cancel it (they should be able to, even after POPLA, or reduce it to £30 to cover the POPLA fee and a bit for the letters) if they are fed up with complaints and support it being cancelled, an email saying that is their view as landowners, would be an ace up your sleeve.

This would be evidence to kill the 'commercial justification/legit interest' facade that somehow hoodwinked the surprisingly easily led 'up the garden path and round the corner' Supreme Court Judges in Beavis!

mpg286 · 10 April 2019 at 10:13AM

Hi All,

Just to give an update and ask some advice.

I have progressed through the debt recovery agency and am coming to the apparent end of the "legal letters"

The letter have been coming from "BW Legal", I'm guessing this being Britannia's scumbags-of-choice.

So, in 2 days I will have passed the deadline by which I would have been able to "settle" for £120.

My question is, what advice do people have for me now?

Do I cut my losses and pay the thing, or should I stick it out?

I don't want to be taking time off work to go to court, do they actually follow through with these "threats"?

How have other cases progressed with Britannia?

mpg286 · 20 May 2019 at 10:24AM

Another update:

I have the letter from Northampton County Court Buisness Centre.

My next steps are as follows:

1. Send back acknowledgement Form.

2. Sent the defense at the bottom of this reply.

3. Reject mediation.

4. Submit detailed witness statement, complete with photos, as to the specfics of my defence (primarily that the sign posts are not visible, and very poorly placed, therefore preventing me from knowing there was a maximum stay).

5. Go to court.

The Defense:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Britannia Parking Group Ltd. (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Castle · 20 May 2019 at 10:28AM

mpg286 wrote: »

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

Did Britannia include a copy of the landowner's agreement in their evidence to POPLA?

Britannia Rejected POPLA Appeal

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free