DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62843--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 17, 2025, 7:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you may be overthinking this - which is certainly better
than under-thinking it!
You may be right that they're trying to catch you out, but on
the off chance they are willing to consider evidence that the
driver had a right to be there, there's no harm in supplying it.
Just be careful with your wording
i.e. "Further to your email XYZ, and referring to appeal XYZ,
the driver has supplied me with the following receipt. I trust
this will be enough for PCN to be cancelled"
--
As an aside, I note in your appeal and reply you are talking
about "getting to the driver identification stage" - to be clear
there is no such stage. You do not need to identify the driver.
If there is no POFA compliance, they cannot transfer liability
from the unknown driver to the known keeper. If there were POFA
compliance they could, but you will still likely appeal as the
keeper, not shift liability of your own accord.
#Post#: 62845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: March 17, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In this particular car park it was a 3 hour "free" limit, and
then you had to pay to go beyond that. So it's not really
relevant if I had a ticket or not, the time was a few minutes
over the 3 hours, so not sure what angle they were trying to
take with this one.
Point taken about the stages, I guess by this, I meant that I
was going to validate the ticket as the registered keeper before
I went on to identify the driver... which of course I won't be
doing :-)
I'm guessing from your profile name you're an amateur radio
user?
De M0OOS
73 :-)
#Post#: 62848--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 17, 2025, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're right to be suspicious of their angle - but it's not
completely unheard of for these sorts of things to be dropped.
If they can get into their tiny minds "this person was a genuine
customer and only overstayed for a few minutes, therefore we'd
have no hope in court" they may well drop it.
#Post#: 62881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: March 17, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why are you trying to conduct this without following the advice
and using all sorts of wording that indicates to them that you
are a likely mug, ripe for picking off the gullible tree?
Simply respond with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Appeal Rejection – Britannia’s Continued
Non-Compliance
>
> Dear Magdalena,
>
> Thank you for your response, which demonstrates a fundamental
lack of understanding of PoFA, the PPSCoP, and basic legal
principles. You’ve managed to completely ignore every single
failure of your own Notice to Keeper (NtK), instead parroting a
legally baseless assumption that merely claiming PoFA compliance
somehow makes it so.
>
> Unfortunately for Britannia, PoFA is not a pick-and-mix buffet
where you get to cherry-pick compliance. Either an NtK meets all
mandatory conditions, or it doesn’t. And yours doesn’t. It’s
like pregnancy—you either are, or you aren’t. There’s no such
thing as being ‘a little bit PoFA compliant.’
>
> Since you evidently failed to properly read my initial appeal
properly, let me spell it out again:
>
> [indent]• Your NtK does not contain the mandatory PoFA
9(2)(e)(i) wording. The statute is clear... There can be no
implied obligation. The invitation to the keeper must be
included. Your omission alone is enough to invalidate keeper
liability.
> • Your payment deadline misrepresents PoFA 9(2)(f). The
legally prescribed 28-day period starts from the day after the
notice is given, not from the arbitrary internal deadline you’ve
made up.
> • You have failed to clearly identify the creditor, breaching
PoFA 9(2)(h). Simply naming Britannia Parking somewhere in the
notice does not meet this requirement.
> • Your 'proof of posting' is worthless. A mail consolidator’s
hybrid email receipt is not proof that the notice entered the
postal system on the stated date. As per PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2,
which very clearly states: "Therefore, parking operators must
retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply
of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any
third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal
system.)" So, your consolidators receipt is not evidence of the
date they put the notice into the postal system. Without this
proof, the presumption of service cannot apply.[/indent]
>
> Now, onto the blatant misinformation in your response. Your
claim that I am liable for the charge unless I name the driver
is utter nonsense. Liability under PoFA does not arise simply
because Britannia wants it to—it only arises if you have met all
statutory conditions. Which, as demonstrated above, you have
not.
>
> Your pathetic attempt to intimidate me into disclosing the
driver’s details is noted. It won’t work. I am under no legal
obligation to assist Britannia in identifying the driver, and
given your clear non-compliance with PoFA, there is no valid
claim against me as the keeper.
>
> You now have two choices:
>
> [indent]1. Cancel this unenforceable charge now, saving
Britannia the embarrassment of having it formally discredited at
POPLA.
> 2. Press ahead with a doomed POPLA appeal, where I will
dismantle your case, highlighting every regulatory breach in
excruciating detail.[/indent]
>
> Either way, this charge is dead in the water. But by all
means, feel free to waste your company’s money. I’d almost feel
bad for Britannia Parking—if they weren’t such a predatory,
incompetent outfit.
>
> Yours insincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 63042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: td89
Date: March 18, 2025, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You too? I also got one from the Dolphin pub!
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/britannia-pcn-overstayed-dolphin-pub-botley/msg60714/#msg60714
I contacted the publican who didn't sound that interested seeing
as we weren't customers at that time.
[member=26]b789[/member] thanks for these templates, I'll borrow
these to handle my PCN too.
#Post#: 64023--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: March 25, 2025, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the replies and suggestions, I did as you
suggested. I received the attached today. They seem to have
ignored all my previous responses and still want me to name the
driver.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 64088--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: March 25, 2025, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just respond with this:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Parking Charge 13927702 – Your Ongoing Failure to
Address Statutory Non-Compliance
>
> Dear Britannia Parking Appeals Team,
>
> Thank you for your latest non-response dated 25 March 2025.
>
> Once again, you have entirely failed to address the specific
and serious legal deficiencies I raised. Instead of engaging
with the substance of my appeal, you continue to parrot
irrelevant excerpts from Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, as though simply quoting it somehow validates
your position.
>
> Let me help you understand, since this seems to be a recurring
problem for you.
>
> PoFA is not a “best efforts” checklist. It is an
all-or-nothing statute. You cannot be “mostly PoFA compliant”
any more than someone can be “mostly pregnant.” It’s binary: you
either fully comply, or you don’t. And since I’ve already
itemised your multiple and fatal failures—including your
omission of the mandatory invitation wording under 9(2)(e)(i),
the misrepresentation of the statutory deadline under 9(2)(f),
your failure to identify the creditor under 9(2)(h), and the
absence of proof of actual posting in line with PPSCoP
8.1.2(e)—your NtK is, quite simply, not compliant. Therefore, no
right to pursue the registered keeper arises under PoFA.
>
> Now, as for your persistent attempts to pressure me into
naming the driver:
>
> Please get it into your intellectually malnourished minds that
I am under no legal obligation whatsoever to identify the driver
to an unregulated private company. PoFA confers the right to
pursue the keeper only if all statutory conditions are met.
Since you have failed to meet those conditions, I owe you
nothing—not money, not information, and certainly not the
driver’s details.
>
> You can repeat your misguided assertions about keeper
liability until the cows come home. It won’t make them true.
Burying your heads in the sand and hoping I’ll eventually
capitulate is not a strategy; it’s a delusion.
>
> If you insist on continuing to demand the driver’s identity
despite your glaring lack of entitlement, I can only refer you
to the answer famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
>
> Your options remain unchanged:
>
> [indent]• Cancel this unenforceable charge and cease the
unlawful processing of my data.
> • Issue a formal rejection along with a POPLA code, so I can
highlight your repeated breaches and PoFA non-compliance in full
detail to an independent assessor.[/indent]
>
> I expect a substantive reply that responds to each specific
point already raised, not another irrelevant boilerplate
paragraph. Do not insult my intelligence with a third
non-answer.
>
> Yours insincerely,
>
> [Your Name]
> Registered Keeper
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 64096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: March 25, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ha! I like the tone of that. I have replied exactly as you
suggest. Many thanks again for your input. I will let you know
what response I receive :-)
#Post#: 64106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 25, 2025, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Of all the operators, Britannia has to be one of the most
haphazard in their responses to appeals - it's a lucky dip which
logo they'll put on their letterhead, let alone what bizarre
response they'll churn out. I really can't figure them out.
#Post#: 64982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: March 31, 2025, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well it seems our friends at Britannia have not given up and are
digging their heels in. I've just received another reply and got
my POPLA code along with another fake "proof of posting" Please
see attached. Any further advice gratefully received.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page