DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: b789
Date: April 8, 2025, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just use the following as your rebuttal which you can copy and
paste into the POPLA response webform:
--- Quote ---
> This is my rebuttal to Britannia Parking’s evidence.
>
> Britannia has failed to properly respond to the main points
raised in my appeal. Their evidence pack contains large amounts
of generic text and irrelevant photographs, but it does not
address the actual legal arguments that were presented.
>
> The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Britannia repeatedly claim that their
notice is PoFA compliant, but they fail to address the specific
breaches pointed out in the appeal. Merely repeating that a
notice is compliant does not make it so. Just as someone cannot
be partially or even mostly pregnant – they either are or they
aren’t – a Parking Charge Notice cannot be partially or even
mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn’t. This is a
binary issue, and in this case, the notice is not fully PoFA
compliant.
>
> The Notice to Keeper fails to include the statutory wording
required under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. That paragraph
states that the notice must invite the keeper to do one of two
things: either pay the unpaid charge or notify the creditor of
the name and current address of the driver. The use of the word
“invite” is deliberate and important. It reflects the fact that
there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the
driver to a private company. The law does not permit any implied
obligation. The notice must make this position explicitly clear.
>
> Britannia’s NtK does not include any such invitation. Instead,
it states that the driver is required to pay the charge in full
and that the keeper should provide the driver’s details. This is
not what PoFA requires. There is no statement that the keeper is
invited to pay the charge. Nor is there any recognition that
naming the driver is optional. The word “invite” does not appear
anywhere in the relevant section of the notice.
>
> This is not a minor issue. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) is a mandatory
condition. If the notice fails to meet this requirement, then
keeper liability under PoFA cannot apply. Partial or assumed
compliance is not good enough. The law requires the invitation
to be clearly and expressly stated. Britannia has failed to
include it, and they have failed to address this omission in
their response. Their repeated assertion that the NtK is PoFA
compliant does not make it so.
>
> They have also misrepresented the 28-day statutory period
under paragraph 9(2)(f). The notice says the keeper has 28 days
“from the date given,” which they define as two working days
after posting. However, the law requires that the 28-day period
begins the day after the notice is deemed “given.” Britannia
wrongly uses the “given” date as Day 1. This shortens the
statutory response period by a full day and misleads the
recipient.
>
> The notice does not clearly identify the creditor as required
by paragraph 9(2)(h). It simply refers to “Britannia Parking,”
which is not a legal entity. There are at least four different
companies in the Britannia group, including Britannia Parking
Group Ltd, Britannia Parking Services Ltd, Britannia Parking
Management Ltd, and Britannia Parking Ltd. Each is a separate
legal entity. The notice does not name which one is the
creditor, nor does it include a company number or registered
address. The assessor cannot be expected to guess which company
is claiming the charge. The notice must clearly identify the
legal entity to whom the charge is owed.
>
> There is no valid proof of posting. Britannia has submitted a
printout from a third-party mail company showing the date the
notice was generated and passed to them. That is not a proof of
posting. There is no Royal Mail receipt or confirmation that the
notice was actually posted. Furthermore, Britannia admits using
“2–3 day delivery,” which is second class post. Second class
mail does not trigger the two-working-day presumption of
delivery under the Interpretation Act 1978. Without valid proof
of posting by first class mail, they cannot rely on the 14-day
service window under PoFA paragraph 9(4).
>
> Britannia has not provided a single clear sign showing the
10-minute validation requirement in a prominent and legible way.
Their evidence pack includes multiple photos, but most are taken
from wide angles or are too blurry or distant to show any
meaningful content. The key condition that supposedly forms the
basis of the £100 charge – that the driver must validate their
stay within 10 minutes – is not shown in any image as a clear
and prominent term. That is a breach of the Private Parking
Single Code of Practice, and it means no contract could have
been formed on those terms.
>
> The contract with the landowner is so heavily redacted that it
is not reliable. The termination clause is completely blacked
out, meaning it is impossible to tell whether the contract was
valid and in force on the date of the alleged contravention.
POPLA requires operators to prove that they had authority at the
relevant time. Britannia has not shown this.
>
> The evidence pack contains many irrelevant images, including
photos of walls, street furniture, plumbing fixtures and other
background items that have no connection to the signage or the
terms and conditions. These appear included just to bulk out the
submission and confuse the issue. They do not support the
operator’s case and should be ignored.
>
> Most importantly, Britannia has not responded directly to the
points made in the appeal. Instead, they have copied and pasted
large amounts of standard text and made generic statements about
their compliance. They have not rebutted the detailed PoFA
breaches, nor have they proven that a contract was formed or
that they had authority to issue the charge.
>
> Conclusion: The Parking Charge Notice is not PoFA compliant.
The signage is inadequate. The landowner contract is incomplete.
The operator has not addressed the appeal arguments or provided
the evidence required. This charge must be cancelled.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 76136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: June 12, 2025, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I finally got a decision on my appeal! Success!! Thank you to
all that were involved and helped me, some really good advice on
this forum. For interest, I'll post the assessor summary and
comments below.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal which have been condensed for the purpose of my
report: • The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) – there is no keeper
liability. They say close analysis shows that the notice is not
fully compliant and must be absolute for keeper liability to
comply. They say the operator has failed to meet Schedule 4
Paragraph 9 (e) (i) as there is no invitation for the keeper to
pay, it does not meet (f) as there is no timeline. They say the
wording of the PCN is incorrect and misleading as saying that
£100 must be made within 28 days of the date issued is incorrect
and there are two conflicting payment deadlines leading
motorists to believe payment is required earlier than expected
and legally required. They say 9 (2) (b) has not been met as the
circumstances are not described. They say that 9 (2) (f) has not
been met. They say the operator has failed to identify he
creditor and Britania Parking is not a legal entity and does not
appear on Companies House. Therefore, not meeting 9 (2) (f).
They say 9 (4) has not been met as there has been no
demonstration that the keeper was posted and this also does not
meet the Private Parking Single Code of Practice in section 8.2
(e) note 2. • No valid contract formed – inadequate and unclear
signage. They say the signs are not sufficient, displayed in
prominent and visible locations, containing clear and legible
wording or communicating the requirement to validate in 10
minutes. They say there must be a site map, photos of the signs
from a driver’s perspective at the entry and kiosk and a sign
containing the 10 minute requirement and the £100 charge. • They
mention the Supreme Court Case heard between Parking Eye Ltd v
Beavis 2015. They mention the 10 minute requirement being a core
contractual condition and does not meet 7.2.3 of the code. They
say the charge was not prominent and was unclear, failing to be
distinguishable from the rest of the text. • The operator is put
to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It must
have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley – The
Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and the
contract covers the required period. After reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of
appeal in further detail. The appellant states the landowner
document is so heavily redacted it is impossible to confirm
whether the contract is valid, PoFA requirements have not been
met, the signs do not contain the 10 minute requirement and the
operator has not responded to their concerns.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The
burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been
issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle
parked without a valid payment. The appellant questions whether
operator is properly authorised by the landowner and whether it
holds a valid contract to enforce PCNs. They say the operator is
put to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It
must have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley –
The Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and
the contract covers the required period. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its
parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code
states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of
a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a
parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has
provided POPLA with a copy of contract, however this evidence
does not confirm that there is an agreement with the landowner
as the name and address of the landowner is fully redacted.
Whilst it confirms the address, in the absence of the
landowner’s name and address, I cannot conclude that the
operator had a valid contract with the owner of this land on the
date of the event. It is within the operator’s gift to provide
POPLA with evidence to fully rebut the appellant’s grounds
raised and in this instance, I am not satisfied the copy of the
contract does rebut their grounds. POPLA’s role is to assess if
the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the
conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a
full copy of a compliant agreement with the landowner , I am not
satisfied that the operator has issued this PCN correctly, and
accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised
other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal,
it is not necessary for me to address these.
#Post#: 76167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 12, 2025, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, what was the name of the assessor? Different
assessors seem to take wildly different approaches to landowner
authority and what they will and won't accept as evidence.
Seems you got a good one - well done!
#Post#: 76168--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking overstayed 3 hour limit.
DIR By: norton
Date: June 12, 2025, 5:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Smith was the moderator.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page