DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103440--------------------------------------------------
Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the Fle
ece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: Rocketeer Date: December 21, 2025, 9:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Advice/help requested for NTK recieved for parking in carpark
but not entering Reg in pub. Driver entered and parked, and was
in the pub, meeting friends. Driver does not remember entering
the car reg. I, as the regigistered keeper, received the NTK via
post on the 15/12/2025. I have not responded yet. Date and times
appear correct.
Is NTK compliant with PoF? I am trying to work this out but any
help would be greatly appreciated. If it is, what would be my
next move.
NTK and images plus Google maps link below
HTML https://ibb.co/hFMZP1CV
HTML https://ibb.co/x8dXVCk1
HTML https://ibb.co/4n45QNxX
HTML https://ibb.co/G4tYwmWL
HTML https://ibb.co/JFyCSxbF
HTML https://ibb.co/5fxxqPV
HTML https://ibb.co/XxKMvWfd
HTML https://ibb.co/MD0bdMx7
HTML https://ibb.co/chhQdLmf
HTML https://ibb.co/Kj9H7PPX
HTML https://ibb.co/wZYGD9zW
HTML https://ibb.co/5gvxCrFK
HTML https://ibb.co/XfX64hZY
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7499385,-2.7300376,3a,75y,205.48h,96.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXwwhmhJrO85f-WtZwEFW0A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-6.077004539976144%26panoid%3DXwwhmhJrO85f-WtZwEFW0A%26yaw%3D205.4802457275231!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Many thanks
#Post#: 103442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: roythebus Date: December 21, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's the MOTORIST who is liable according to their PCN. Who is
"the motorist"? AFAIK there's no legal definition. Is it the
driver? The Registered keeper? The Owner? someone travelling in
the car? Their upright sign says "the vehicle will be issued
with"... I'd like to see a vehicle reply.
Follow the standard advice given on here, NEVER reveal who the
driver is. In any reply never say "I parked", "I went to the
bar" etc. "The driver" parked Liability can't be transferred
from the driver to the registered keeper (RK) unless eomeone
tells them who that was. there is no obligation to do so.
Others will be along soon with the standard form of reply who
can articulate it better than I can.
#Post#: 103444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: Rocketeer Date: December 21, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2 good points, I didn't spot them.
looking again, the car park sign makes no sense, as a vehicle
cannot be issued with PCN, nor can a vehicle register at the
bar!
thank you for the reply
#Post#: 103477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: b789 Date: December 21, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice to Keeper repeatedly uses the word “motorist” when
describing who is responsible for the parking charge. “Motorist”
is not a defined or legally meaningful category within Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Schedule 4 deals with
liability as between specific parties only, namely the driver,
the registered keeper, and (where applicable) the hirer. Where
an operator intends to pursue the registered keeper under PoFA,
it must do so by complying with the statutory conditions and by
using the required statutory structure: the driver is primarily
liable, and the keeper only becomes liable if all prescribed
requirements are met and the driver is not named.
By describing the liable party as “the motorist”, the Notice
introduces unnecessary ambiguity because it is not clear whether
the operator is alleging liability against the driver, the
keeper, or some other undefined person. In that sense, the
language is loose and imprecise, and it is reasonable to put the
operator to strict proof that the Notice is fully PoFA compliant
and that it is in fact attempting to transfer liability to the
keeper in the only way Parliament allows.
However, in this particular case, the “motorist” wording is of
limited practical relevance because the Notice also contains
wording later on that plainly indicates an attempt to rely on
PoFA. It explains that the driver is required to pay, invites
the keeper to name the driver, and states that after a stated
period the operator may pursue the unpaid charge from the
registered keeper if the driver is not identified. That is the
substance of the PoFA keeper liability warning. So while the use
of “motorist” can be criticised as sloppy drafting, it is
unlikely, on its own, to defeat their reliance on PoFA if the
Notice otherwise includes the mandatory information and warnings
in the correct form. In short, the better point is not that the
word “motorist” appears, but that the operator must still prove
full PoFA compliance overall, and that loose terminology does
not cure any missing or defective statutory wording elsewhere.
#Post#: 103511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: Rocketeer Date: December 21, 2025, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the information and advice. I believe these might
be ground s to appeal/refuse to name the driver
1. NTK not compliant with PoF
PoF Sch 4
para 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid
parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so
far as applicable) are met; and
(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the
period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.
para 6 (1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person
acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7,
followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8;
or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
para 9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper
for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance
with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(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));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver and
invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
The NTK does not state that the creditor does not know the name
of the driver or service address. Therefore it does not meet the
requirements of para 9, para 6 and thus para 4 to transfer
liability to the keeper.
2. The creditor has not complied with the PPSCoP
Annex F
Page 43 of 57
THE SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE
Introduction
F.1 Exempt circumstances
Parking operators should take all reasonable steps to avoid
issuing a notice to exempt
classes of vehicle (listed below) by scrutinising images and
weighing the balance of doubt.
The Appeals Charter is a statement of the way certain grounds of
appeal based on an
error or mitigating circumstances will be handled by the parking
operator. There are 2
scenarios considered within the Appeals Charter:
1.Where the parking charge should be cancelled.
2.Where the parking charge should be reduced to £20 for a period
of 14 days.
F.3 Appeals where the charge should be reduced to £20 for a
period of
14 days
In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the
below case types as
mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction in the amount of
the parking charge to
£20 for 14 days, subject to appropriate evidence being provided.
This reduction applies
only for the first parking charge issued to the vehicle for the
specific contravention, where
payment is made within 14 days and where no independent appeal
is lodged.
g) where the vehicle would have been permitted to park at the
location, but the driver failed
to enter their registration into a terminal/device as specified
in the terms & conditions.
The NTK keeper states: "We are writng to inform you that a
parking charge has been issued to the above vehicle for the
following breach of he terms and conditions: Parked without
registering vehicle at the bar or reception". NTK states
discount to be £60, despite confirming the breach met the
requirements for a discount to £20.
Further, PPSCoP Scope "Parking operators who comply with the
Code will be entitled to request registered keeper
data from the DVLA, for the purpose of contacting the registered
keeper of vehicles in
relation to the alleged incident. DVLA considers the release of
data under Regulation 27 of
the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulation 2002."
As the operator did not comply with the code, they were not
entitled to request registered keeper data from DVLA.
Any advice on whether these make sense would be greatly
appreciated.
#Post#: 103514--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: b789 Date: December 21, 2025, 6:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can use that. Also, it is not clear who the creditor is. Is
it Britannia Parking Group Ltd, Britannia Parking Ltd or is it
Britannia Parking Services Ltd?
#Post#: 103528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: Rocketeer Date: December 22, 2025, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for you advice re: creditor
I will add this to my appeal and post here later.
Thank you
#Post#: 103577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: b789 Date: December 22, 2025, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can use the following paragraphs in your POPLA appeal:
[quote]1. The operator is attempting to hold the Registered
Keeper liable under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (“PoFA”). Keeper liability is not automatic. It only exists
if, and only if, the operator has fully complied with every
mandatory requirement of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2). If any
single requirement in paragraph 9(2) is not complied with, the
Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant and the operator cannot
transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
2. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(h) is a strict statutory
requirement. It requires the Notice to Keeper to “identify the
creditor”. The creditor must be a legal person to whom the
alleged parking charge is owed. The purpose of paragraph 9(2)(h)
is to remove any doubt as to who is asserting the debt and who
would have standing to pursue it.
3. This Notice to Keeper does not identify any legal person as
the creditor. It merely refers to “Britannia Parking”.
“Britannia Parking” is not a single legal entity. It is a
trading style used by multiple different limited companies with
closely similar names, including (but not limited to) Britannia
Parking Group Ltd, Britannia Parking Services Ltd, Britannia
Parking Ltd, Britannia Parking Group (Holdings) Ltd, and
Britannia Parking Solutions Ltd. The Notice does not state which
of these companies is the contracting party and the creditor.
4. Where more than one legal person exists with the words
“Britannia Parking” in its name, and the Notice fails to specify
which legal person is the creditor, paragraph 9(2)(h) is not
met. POPLA cannot assume the creditor and the keeper cannot be
expected to guess. This defect is fatal to keeper liability.
Accordingly, the operator cannot rely on PoFA and may only
pursue the driver. Since the driver has not been identified, the
appeal must be allowed.[/quote]
#Post#: 103607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: Rocketeer Date: December 22, 2025, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the extra information.
Here is the appeal I shall be sending to Britannia:
"I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. Britannia has relied on contract law allegations
of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
I would also add that you have breached your own code of
practice, the PPSCoP, in that Under Annex F - Apeals charter,
(F.3.g) it stipulates that under the circumstances you cite for
raising the 'parking charge', you MUST discount the charge to
£20. You did not do that.
Britannia have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us
both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."
I have copied it from others on here so I hope it meets the
requirements. ant comments would be appreciated before I submit
it
Many thanks
#Post#: 103619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
By: b789 Date: December 22, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would advise against adding that extra paragraph in the
initial appeal. It will not make one iota of difference. Save
everything for POPLA. Even if POPLA is not successful, you will
not be paying a penny to Britannia if you follow the advice. See
this thread about a Britannia PCN that was discontinued a day or
so ago:
Britannia Parking Group Ltd - Failure to make valid payment -
Flamborough North Landing Beach Main and Overflow
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/britannia-parking-group-ltd-failure-to-make-valid-payment-flamborough-north-land/
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page