DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64995--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: March 31, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a draft POPLA appeal you could use:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA Verification Code: 6010905045
> Vehicle Registration: P777 AJN
> Parking Charge Number: 13927702
> Location: Botley – The Dolphin
> Date of Alleged Contravention: 07/02/2025
> Date of NtK Issue: 13/02/2025
>
> Grounds of Appeal:
>
> [indent]1. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 –
Keeper liability cannot apply.
> 2. Inadequate evidence that a legally binding contract was
capable of being formed.
> 3. Failure to clearly communicate key contractual terms,
including the 10-minute validation requirement.
> 4. The operator is put to strict proof of a valid and
contemporaneous contract with the landowner.[/indent]
>
> 1. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 – Keeper
liability cannot apply.
>
> Britannia Parking cannot rely on keeper liability under PoFA
2012 due to multiple breaches of Schedule 4, including but not
limited to:
>
> [indent]• Failure to include the statutory invitation to the
keeper to pay or name the driver (PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)).
>
> The Notice to Keeper entirely omits the mandatory wording
required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012. This provision obliges the operator to
explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the parking charge or
provide the name and address of the driver. This is not optional
wording, nor can its meaning be inferred from context or from
the fact that the notice is addressed to the keeper. The
legislation requires a clear and unambiguous invitation to be
present on the face of the notice.
>
> Britannia’s NtK fails to include this statutory invitation at
all. There is no mention of any choice being offered to the
keeper to name the driver or pay the charge. The courts have
been clear that PoFA is not a matter of assumed or implied
compliance: if any required paragraph is not followed to the
letter, keeper liability cannot arise. The operator’s repeated
references to paragraph 9(2)(b) — which simply states that the
NtK must describe the circumstances — do not and cannot
substitute for compliance with 9(2)(e)(i). Their failure to
include this key provision is a fatal defect that voids any
attempt to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
>
> • Misrepresentation of the statutory payment period (PoFA
9(2)(f)).
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 requires that a Notice to Keeper must inform the keeper
that after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after
the notice is given, the creditor will have the right to recover
the unpaid parking charge from the keeper (if all other
conditions are met and the driver has not been named). The
legislation is precise: the 28-day period must begin the day
after the notice is deemed to have been 'given', not the date
the notice was issued or the date it was received.
>
> The NtK issued by Britannia Parking fundamentally
misrepresents this statutory requirement. It states:
>
> [indent]“You are advised that if, after 28 days from the date
given, (which is presumed to be the second working day after the
date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full… we
have the right to recover the charge from the registered
keeper.”[/indent]
>
> This is legally incorrect and misleading on multiple fronts:
>
> PoFA defines the start of the 28-day period as the day after
the notice is 'given'. Britannia defines the 28 days as running
from the ‘date given’. This unlawfully shortens the statutory
grace period by one full day.
>
> Britannia relies on the presumption of service (two working
days after posting) to calculate the ‘date given’, but instead
of commencing the 28-day period the day after this date (as
required by law), they treat the ‘date given’ itself as Day 1.
This is a clear and deliberate misstatement of the legislation.
>
> The compounded effect of this error is that the recipient is
misled into believing enforcement may lawfully commence a day
earlier than is permitted by statute — a breach of the
transparency obligations under both PoFA and the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice.
>
> Furthermore, the notice gives the impression that keeper
liability automatically arises if the charge is not paid within
the shortened period, regardless of whether the conditions of
PoFA have been met. This is not only false but arguably an act
of misleading or aggressive commercial practice under the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
>
> To summarise: PoFA 9(2)(f) requires 28 full days to elapse
starting the day after the notice is 'given'. Britannia
unlawfully counts the ‘date given’ itself as Day 1, thereby
shortening the keeper’s statutory period to respond. This is not
a minor technicality — it is a direct and material misstatement
of the law which renders the NtK non-compliant and invalidates
any claim to keeper liability.
>
> • Failure to clearly identify the creditor to whom the charge
is owed (PoFA 9(2)(h)).
>
> Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012 requires that a Notice to Keeper must “identify the
creditor”—meaning it must clearly and unambiguously state the
legal entity to whom the unpaid parking charge is owed. This is
a mandatory statutory requirement and is critical to
establishing any enforceable liability under PoFA.
>
> The NtK issued by Britannia Parking fails this requirement. It
refers throughout to “Britannia Parking” without any indication
of the specific legal entity issuing the charge or to whom
payment is owed. “Britannia Parking” is not itself a legal
entity and does not appear as such on the Companies House
register. Instead, there are multiple similarly-named companies
listed, including but not limited to:
>
> [indent]• Britannia Parking Group Limited
> • Britannia Parking Services Limited
> • Britannia Parking Management Limited
> • Britannia Parking Limited[/indent]
>
> The NtK fails to specify which of these corporate entities is
acting as the creditor. There is no registered company number
given on the face of the NtK, no reference to which Britannia
company is party to the alleged parking contract, and no
corporate identifier that would enable a reasonable recipient to
determine who is legally owed the charge.
>
> This omission is not trivial. The obligation under PoFA
9(2)(h) is to identify the creditor—not simply to imply or
assume it, or to rely on generic branding. It is not enough to
use a trading style or group brand name where there are multiple
companies with the same brand but different legal personalities.
The requirement exists precisely to ensure transparency and
certainty regarding who the alleged debt is owed to, in the same
way a contractual counterparty must be properly identified for a
contract to be enforceable.
>
> The failure to identify the creditor means the NtK does not
meet the conditions for keeper liability under PoFA. No such
liability can arise unless all mandatory elements are present
and correct. By omitting this essential information, Britannia
Parking has rendered the notice invalid for the purposes of
Schedule 4 and cannot lawfully pursue the registered keeper.
>
> • Failure to prove the Notice to Keeper was actually posted
(PoFA 9(4), PPSCoP 8.1.2(e), and the Interpretation Act 1978).
>
> Britannia has failed to demonstrate that the Notice to Keeper
was actually posted, as required by PoFA 9(4), which states that
the notice must be given (delivered) to the keeper within 14
days, or presumed delivered in accordance with the postal
provisions under the Interpretation Act 1978.
>
> Britannia relies on what they call a “certificate of posting,”
but this is in fact not a "proof of posting certificate" at all.
It is merely a system-generated confirmation from a third-party
mail consolidator, showing only that Britannia transferred the
notice to that consolidator for processing. This does not prove
that the notice was physically posted — i.e., handed to Royal
Mail or entered the postal system on the same day. It simply
proves that it was generated and sent electronically to a bulk
print/mail provider. That is not the same thing as posting, and
it does not satisfy PoFA.
>
> This precise failure is anticipated and directly addressed in
the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), Clause
8.1.2(e), Note 2, which states:
>
> [indent]“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).”[/indent]
>
> Britannia has provided no evidence that the notice was
actually entered into the Royal Mail system on the stated issue
date, or even within the required period to be able show
presumption of delivery within the 14 day period. They have not
shown a Royal Mail receipt, dispatch log, or any other physical
evidence that confirms the notice was posted.
>
> Worse still, Britannia have confirmed that their delivery
class is “2–3 day delivery.” This is clearly second-class post,
not first class. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, only first
class post triggers a statutory presumption of delivery two
working days after posting. Second class post has no such
two-day presumption, and may be presumed delivered not less than
3 working days after posting. Therefore, Britannia’s own
admission about the postal class destroys their ability to rely
on the PoFA 14-day service rule via presumption.
>
> In summary:
>
> [indent]• The “certificate of posting” proves nothing about
actual posting.
> • No evidence has been provided to confirm that Royal Mail
accepted or handled the notice.
> • The delivery method was second class, which does not support
a two-working-day presumption of delivery.[/indent]
>
> Therefore, Britannia has not complied with PoFA 9(4), the
PPSCoP, or the Interpretation Act.
> Without actual proof of posting via first class mail,
Britannia cannot rely on any presumption of service, and the
notice must be considered delivered outside the 14-day window.
Keeper liability under PoFA therefore does not apply.
>
> Because Britannia has failed to comply with multiple mandatory
conditions, keeper liability does not apply. POPLA has no
alternative but to uphold this appeal on this point
alone.[/indent]
>
> 2. Inadequate evidence that a legally binding contract was
capable of being formed.
>
> The alleged contravention is based on a failure to validate
the stay by entering the vehicle registration into a kiosk
within 10 minutes of arrival. For such a contractual obligation
to be enforceable, Britannia Parking must prove that:
>
> [indent]• There was sufficient signage on site,
> • Displayed in prominent and visible locations,
> • Containing clear and legible wording,
> • Communicating the material terms of the alleged contract,
including the requirement to validate within 10 minutes, and the
consequences of not doing so.[/indent]
>
> They are not required to prove that the driver actually read
the signs, but they are required to demonstrate that the signage
was such that a reasonable driver would have been aware of the
terms before being deemed to have accepted them. This is the
minimum threshold for contract formation under the principle of
incorporation of terms by notice, as affirmed in ParkingEye Ltd
v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
>
> To date, Britannia has not supplied any evidence of the
signage at the site, including:
>
> [indent]• A site map showing the location of signs relative to
the vehicle’s route and the kiosk,
> • Photographs of the signage as seen from a driver’s
perspective, particularly on entry and at the kiosk,
> • A readable image of the sign displaying the 10-minute
validation requirement and warning of the £100 charge.[/indent]
>
> Without such evidence, POPLA cannot be satisfied that the
signage met the standard required to convey binding contractual
terms to a reasonable motorist. Furthermore, if the validation
requirement was buried in small print, not visible from a moving
vehicle, or not immediately apparent upon parking, then no
contract can be said to have been formed.
>
> It is not open to Britannia to assert that a contract existed
unless they provide compelling proof that their signage was
capable of creating one. In the absence of such proof, no
contractual liability can arise, and the Parking Charge Notice
must be cancelled.
>
> 3. Failure to clearly communicate key contractual terms,
including the 10-minute validation requirement.
>
> Britannia asserts that motorists must enter their vehicle
registration into a kiosk within 10 minutes of arrival or face a
£100 charge. This is not a minor procedural detail — it is a
core contractual condition, the breach of which allegedly
triggers the charge. It therefore must be given particular
prominence on the signage, in accordance with the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Clause 7.2.3, which
states:
>
> [indent]“Terms that may result in charges or other liabilities
must be made clear and prominently displayed at the locations
where they apply. These terms must be clearly identifiable as
the key terms and distinguishable from less important
information.”[/indent]
>
> Britannia has failed to provide any evidence that this
10-minute validation requirement is:
>
> [indent]• Displayed in large, prominent font;
> • Unambiguous and clearly stated as a condition precedent to
avoiding a charge;
> • Highlighted in any way (e.g., bold, contrasting colour) to
differentiate it from general terms;
> • Located at key decision points, such as the car park
entrance or payment kiosk.[/indent]
>
> Without this evidence, POPLA cannot possibly conclude that any
contract was capable of being formed on these terms. The Supreme
Court in ParkingEye v Beavis upheld the enforceability of a
parking charge specifically because the £85 charge was
prominently displayed in large text and the key terms were
clear. That case cannot be used as a blanket justification for
signage that hides its most critical term in small print or
makes it discoverable only after a breach has occurred.
>
> If the 10-minute condition is not sufficiently visible and
distinguishable from surrounding text, then the operator cannot
reasonably assert that any motorist — let alone one arriving in
a moving vehicle — would be aware of it in time to comply. It is
not enough to bury the requirement somewhere in dense text or
expect that the motorist will seek it out unaided. The burden
lies squarely with the operator to prove that the signage
communicated this term clearly and prominently.
>
> In the absence of any such evidence, Britannia has not met the
evidential threshold required to demonstrate that a contract was
properly offered or that its terms were fairly and prominently
communicated. Accordingly, the Parking Charge Notice cannot be
enforced.
>
> 4. The operator is put to strict proof of a valid and
contemporaneous contract with the landowner.
>
> The burden lies with Britannia Parking to demonstrate that
they have the necessary legal standing to issue Parking Charge
Notices and to offer contracts to motorists at the site in
question. POPLA has consistently held that operators must
provide evidence of their authority to operate on the land, not
merely generic or assumed authority.
>
> Britannia is put to strict proof that:
>
> [indent]• They have a current, valid contract with the
landowner of the site known as "Botley – The Dolphin";
> • That this contract grants them the right to issue Parking
Charge Notices and to take legal action in their own name;
> • That the contract is held by the specific Britannia entity
pursuing the charge, not merely “Britannia Parking” as a group
or brand;
> • That the contract covers the relevant period, including the
date of the alleged contravention.[/indent]
>
> As previously stated, “Britannia Parking” is not a legal
entity. There are multiple companies registered at Companies
House using the “Britannia Parking” brand or variants thereof.
POPLA must be satisfied that the exact corporate entity issuing
this charge has the contractual right to do so. An operator
cannot rely on presumed or umbrella authority. There must be a
clear and direct chain of authority between the landowner and
the specific party enforcing the terms.
>
> If the operator fails to produce a suitably redacted copy of
this contract, or otherwise fails to meet the evidential burden
of proving landowner authority, the appeal must be allowed.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> The Notice to Keeper is fundamentally non-compliant with
multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012. Britannia Parking has failed to:
>
> [indent]• Include the statutory invitation required by PoFA
9(2)(e)(i);
> • Accurately convey the 28-day period under PoFA 9(2)(f);
> • Identify the correct legal creditor under PoFA 9(2)(h);
> • Prove the notice was posted in accordance with PoFA 9(4),
the Interpretation Act, and PPSCoP 8.1.2(e).[/indent]
>
> In addition, Britannia has failed to demonstrate that a
legally binding contract could have been formed due to the
absence of evidence of adequate signage clearly communicating
the 10-minute validation condition. They have also not provided
proof of landowner authority for the specific corporate entity
pursuing the charge.
>
> All of these are fatal defects. Britannia's template-style
responses demonstrate a refusal to engage with the specific
legal points raised and a complete disregard for statutory and
code compliance.
>
> For all the above reasons, I request that POPLA allow this
appeal and require Britannia Parking to cancel this
unenforceable Parking Charge Notice.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 65127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: April 1, 2025, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Amazing! Thank you so much! The appeal was submitted this
morning, so lets see what happens. I owe you a beer :-)
#Post#: 66102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: April 8, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the evidence they've sent to POPLA, quite a big
document!
Do I need to comment on this? I have the option to.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 66108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please host the redacted evidence pack on DropBox or Google
Drive.
#Post#: 66117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: April 8, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Please host the redacted evidence pack on DropBox or Google
Drive.
>
--- End Quote ---
Should be attached to the previous post as as PDF. Can try a
different link if you can't download it.
#Post#: 66124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to download large PDF files when you could simply host
it as suggested and then I don't have to clutter up my HD with
other people data. It's not difficult.
#Post#: 66126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: April 8, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I refuse to download large PDF files when you could simply
host it as suggested and then I don't have to clutter up my HD
with other people data. It's not difficult.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's fair enough. No problem. here is the link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/14xYdUOt-hivUcN7Ti_CxdqmM80iIvhVl/view?usp=drive_link
Appreciate your help.
#Post#: 66129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You need to provide public access. Just make sure that all your
personal data is redacted. Do not redact any dates or times.
#Post#: 66131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: April 8, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You need to provide public access. Just make sure that all
your personal data is redacted. Do not redact any dates or
times.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apologies. We'll get there in the end. Please try now. Have
removed all personal details.
#Post#: 66138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 8, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where does the prominent sign in evidence refer to '10 minutes'
with the same clarity as the other major terms?
If 10 minutes applies, then the breach occurred at 18.14, not at
any other time. I'm still baffled at to when the breach
occurred.
..nearly as baffled as to why the OP didn't provide a receipt.
If we're talking of evidence then there is none that any person
in the vehicle actually patronised the pub.
And on a point of accuracy, PoFA does not specify that a NTK
must include details of by when payment of the charge is to be
paid, in fact it's quite vague:
b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking
charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that
the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the
end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement
to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement
was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts
that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are
unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the
notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to
or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see
sub-paragraph (4));
The only reference to a period in this context is the warning
regarding at what point the creditor may hold the keeper liable.
Just because this states 28 days does not mean that payment of
the charge has to be made within the same period. The latter has
been drawn from the former, but it's not stipulated. Imputing a
meaning is one thing, but it doesn't make it mandatory or
directory.
IMO, there's too much enphasis placed on this in the appeal.
Similarly, trying to draw a distinction between the effects of
'28 days from the date given' and '28 days beginning on the date
after that on which the notice is given'. IMO, these are the
same. 'From' excludes the trigger event IMO. There's case law on
this. 'From' and 'within' and their variants exclude the trigger
event which is why the form of words 'beginning on the date of'
are used when this is intended to be conveyed.
And 'must state' does not mean must carry the words verbatim,
this is established in case law, but it does mean that whatever
is written must convey the correct meaning and not mislead.
IMO.
OP, I suggest you shift your focus.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page