DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84053--------------------------------------------------
PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: August 4, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Recived a PCN for parking in a car park over the 3 hour limit.
HTML https://iili.io/F65Hxe4.md.jpg
I appealed stating i wasnt the driver, i advised them i didnt
need to name the driver to them and they cannot pass the charge
to me as the keeper.
They have come back with the following:
Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can
still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was
the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.
Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of
the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding
contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the
Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a
Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings,
we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed
as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow
for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your
appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please email your additional evidence to
parkingcharges@britpark.com referencing your Parking
Charge Number and Vehicle Registration or send it to our
registered head office address in Poole.
Any advice please? Thanks.
#Post#: 84087--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: August 4, 2025, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ha! Respond to that with the following email:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Re: Parking Charge [Ref No.] — Your Admission of PoFA
Non-Compliance and Misguided Assertions of Liability
>
> Dear Britannia Parking,
>
> Thank you for your latest communication, which makes for an
entertaining — if entirely misconceived — read.
>
> You have openly admitted that your Notice to Keeper is not
compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). That
should have been the end of the matter. The very purpose of PoFA
Schedule 4 was to create a statutory mechanism by which the
Keeper of a vehicle could be held liable in the absence of
driver identification. Without compliance, no such liability can
arise.
>
> Instead of grasping this basic legal reality, you have
attempted to dust off pre-2012 “assumed driver” arguments that
have long since been rendered obsolete. This is not only
intellectually dishonest but reflects a staggering level of
procedural ignorance for an operator supposedly engaged in
lawful enforcement.
>
> Let me spell this out for you:
>
> [indent]• There is no legal presumption that the Keeper was
the driver.
> • The Keeper is not obliged to name the driver.
> • You cannot rely on PoFA where you have not complied with it.
> • And you cannot simply pretend PoFA doesn't exist when it
suits you.[/indent]
>
> Your attempt to rely on “probability” and vague assertions
about contract law is not only speculative but legally
worthless. Civil liability is not determined by guesswork, nor
by who happens to be named on the V5C. Your bluster about
“insurance certificates” is equally asinine — the courts do not
compel production of insurance schedules to help parking firms
scrape together driver identity, and even if you were handed
such a document, it would prove nothing about who was driving at
the material time.
>
> As for your bold claim that “the identity of the driver does
not affect the validity of the Parking Charge,” this is pure
fantasy. Of course it does. The driver is the only party who
could possibly have entered into any contract with you. You
cannot pursue someone else merely because you’d prefer not to do
the legwork.
>
> In short:
>
> [indent]• You’ve admitted non-compliance with the only
statutory framework that could make the Keeper liable.
> • You’ve put forward no evidence of who was driving.
> • You’ve threatened irrelevant and legally baseless steps to
create the illusion of enforceability.
> • And you’ve exposed an alarming level of procedural ignorance
in the process.[/indent]
>
> You now have two options:
>
> [indent]1. Cancel the charge and reflect seriously on the
competence of your legal strategy team, or
> 2. Proceed to POPLA where you can waste your money on an
assessors confirmation of your case.[/indent]
>
> If you remain confused about how legal processes work, I'm
sure your bulk litigator of choice will encourage you to waste
even more money an a futile claim.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 84143--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: August 5, 2025, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, will reply and let you know.
As soon as i read "This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant" i
was thinking why the hell are they still pursuing?!
#Post#: 84159--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: Dave65
Date: August 5, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, does this merit a complaint to the BPA?
#Post#: 84169--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: August 5, 2025, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For what it is worth, yes. Personally, I can't be bothered
wasting time with the cabal as they will never bite the hand
that feeds them.
#Post#: 85266--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: August 12, 2025, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update - Reply from Britannia:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email, your additional correspondence for
your appeal has been logged to our system.
Someone will review this as soon as possible and take into
consideration what you have said. A decision will be made and
sent out to you.
We do have an internal 28 day deadline in which to reply to
appeals, however as we have requested additional evidence to be
provided our response may exceed this deadline.
Please regularly check your spam/inbox for correspondence.
Kind Regards,
Any thoughts appricated, thanks.
#Post#: 85267--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 12, 2025, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure there's much to offer thought on - their response
seems rather self-explanatory.
#Post#: 86801--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: August 22, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply regarding my appeal:
Thank you for your appeal received on 11/08/2025 regarding the
above Parking Charge.
We have considered your appeal and comments you have made; in
conjunction with any evidence
you have provided and the photographs we have on record.
The Parking Charge was issued to your vehicle because you over
stayed the maximum time
permitted for parking at this car park. The store operates as a
90 minutes maximum stay car park.
Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking
Association (BPA) and we follow their
Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. We
meet all signage requirements
under the BPA's Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying
the driver of the terms and
conditions.
British Parking Association Code of Practice - Consideration and
Grace Periods
Where a parking location is one where a limited period of
parking is permitted (Max stay), or where
drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that
service in advance (Pay & Display), this
would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at
least 10 minutes must be added
to the end of a parking event before a Parking Charge can be
issued.
Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of
free parking and there is no
requirement for Britannia Parking to offer an additional
allowance on top of a consideration or grace
period.
We give motorist a 10 minute grace period at the end of parking
event to leave the car park before a
Parking Charge is issued, which is within the BPA guidelines.
After 90 minutes of parking, your 10 minute grace will commence,
if the driver has not left the car
park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a
Parking Charge will be issued for
breaching the terms and conditions of the car park.
Therefore, we consider the Parking Charge to be valid and
correctly issued.
Having considered the content of your letter and our internal
review, as this is your first Parking
Charge appeal, we are prepared to cancel the notice; with the
understanding that you will not
continue to breach the terms and conditions; as you are now
aware of the maximum stay time
permitted for this car park.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking
Thanks for your help all, particularly @b789 :)
#Post#: 86804--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Britannia Parking
DIR By: b789
Date: August 22, 2025, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Total male bovine excrement from the incompetents at Britannia’s
back office. They know perfectly well that—by their own
admission—the NtK is not PoFA-compliant. Without the driver’s
identity, a POPLA appeal would be unwinnable for them and they
know it.
This little gem from them is rubbish:
[indent]“This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however,
payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was
the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone
else.”[/indent]
A classic example of intellectual malnourishment by whoever
authored it. Pre-PoFA “implied contract” doesn’t let an operator
pursue the keeper; and there is no legal presumption that the
keeper was the driver. The burden remains on the claimant to
prove who drove. Hand-waving about “probability” is not
evidence.
Anyway, they folded and cancelled the PCN. Quite right, too.
If it were me, I'd follow up with this:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> Thank you for confirming cancellation of PCN [reference]. Your
own correspondence concedes the NtK was not compliant with PoFA.
In the absence of admissible evidence of the driver’s identity,
you had—and have—no viable claim against the keeper.
>
> Should you ever try to repeat the exercise, I will simply
refer you to the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1