DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103621--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: December 22, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, I will remove the extra paragraph and send as was. I will
update here with the inevitable rejection letter, when received.
Many thanks for all the advice, information and time put into
assisting me, it is very much appreciated.
Cheers
#Post#: 103637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: December 23, 2025, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a quick update to confirm the appeal was sent to Britannia
Parking, via their own system, and an email was received
confirming this.
Nothing more to do now until the rejection letter arrives.
Thanks for all the advice, Merry Xmas and happy new year to all.
#Post#: 108231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: February 1, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to Britannia rejected, 09/01/2026 unfortunately, family
issues prevented me posting earlier. Here is my appeal to POPLA,
before it is sent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounds to appeal
POPLA APPEAL – Britannia Parking
PCN number: A7264301
Vehicle registration: XXXX XXX
Date of event: 07/12/2025
Location: Preston - Fleece Inn, 39 Liverpool road, PR1 9XD
Date of appeal to Britannia Parking rejection: 09/01/2026
Date of appeal to POPLA: 31/01/2026
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as
keeper only. The driver will not be identified.
No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.
Britannia Parking is attempting to hold the registered keeper
liable. That is only possible if, and only if, the Notice to
Keeper fully complies with all mandatory requirements of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). There
is no concept of “partial” or “substantial” compliance. If the
statutory conditions are not met, keeper liability does not
arise and liability (if any) remains only with the unknown
driver.
1. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to: (i) state
that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver, and (ii) invite
the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The wording on this Notice does not “invite the keeper to pay”
the unpaid parking charges. Instead it tells the keeper that if
they were not the driver they should provide the driver’s full
name and address and pass the notice to the driver, and it
threatens that if the keeper does not provide the driver’s
details the operator may pursue the keeper. That is a request to
identify the driver (and a threat), not the statutory invitation
to the keeper to pay.
Parliament deliberately used the phrase “invite the keeper to
pay” in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). A notice that omits that mandatory
invitation and replaces it with a demand for driver details is
not compliant with PoFA. As a result, Britannia Parking cannot
rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to
the registered keeper.
PoFA paragragh 9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the
two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices'
separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a
complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - this NtK
contains no such wording.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if
a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as
follows:
"At the current time, Britannia Parking (the creditor) does not
know both the name and a current address for service for the
driver.
The keeper is therefore invited to pay the unpaid parking
charges,
Or
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 this notice onto the driver."
No such paragraph exist in the NtK. On this basis, POPLA is
therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground.
2. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 4(4).
PoFA Paragraph 4(1) states that the creditor's right to recover
unpaid parking charges from the Keeper:
"may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given."
This is because any liability for parking charges lies strictly
with the driver. Only the driver could have been deemed to enter
a contract with Britannia Parking, at the time of parking, and
if the keeper was not the driver, then no contact could have
been agreed and no liability could exists.
The wording on the NtK contradicts this. It States:
" You have 28 days to pay, appeal or transfer liability from the
date of this notice"
As the keeper, I have no liabilty, but the driver may have.
According to PoFA paragraph 4(4), liability could transfer from
the driver to the keeper, but only after 28 days from the date
of the NtK, and the NtK being compliant with all the condidtions
of PoFA schedule 4. Britannia Parkings insistance that I am
liable, and could therefore "transfer liability" is in direct
contradiction to PoFA Paaragraph 4(4).
And from the rejected appeal:
"Therefore, we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible
signage in the car park to draw *your*
attention to the terms and condition of the parking contract
that is on offer. *By leaving your* vehicle in
the car park without a validation *you* have broken the terms
and conditions and therefore we believe
the Parking Charge to be valid and correctly issued."
Britannia Parking are once again, infering that I am liable, as
they did with the NtK. This is contrary to the PoFA paragraph
9(2)(e)(i). They must state that they do not know the name of
the driver, and should have acknowldged this was not correct in
the original NtK. They do not appear to have engaged with my
reasons for appealing, leading me to assume that this appeal
rejection is simply cut and paste, with no desire to actually
engage with the appeal.
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal
on this ground.
3. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(a).
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states the NtK must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"
No evidence of the required period of parking – entry and exit
times do not constitute parking times, and Parliament used the
word “parking” deliberately
Even if POPLA were to consider the allegation on its merits
(which is not necessary given the absence of keeper liability),
the charge is not proven because Brtiannia Parking has not
evidenced any “period of parking”.
PoFA uses the term “period of parking”. Parliament did not use
“time on site”, “period on site”, “length of stay”, or similar.
This distinction matters. A vehicle can enter and leave a site
for a period of time without being parked for that entire
period.
Britannia Parking is put to strict proof of the actual period of
parking and evidence supporting it. If the operator’s evidence
is merely ANPR entry/exit times, then the statutory concept of a
“period of parking” has not been evidenced and the allegation is
not made out. POPLA cannot substitute “time on site” for “period
of parking” because Parliament did not.
Actually, the NtK does not even include timestamps on the ANPR
images, but a panel that provides claimed time and date
information. The only data from the image that is emphasised, is
the Reg Plate, suggesting that no time stamp is available,
therefore no "period of parking" can be reliably confirmed.The
Britannia Parking NtK merely shows two images of a car, with
the number plate emphasised, corresponding with that of the
vehicle in question. The Notice to Keeper states:
“Entry: 07/12/2025 at 13:28:44
Exit: 07/12/2025 at 15:36:38”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of
parking. By Britannia Parking's own admission on their NtK,
these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the
vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and
this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Further, the entry and exit points of the carpark also provide
access to another, uncontrolled parking space, at the same
location:
InKarma Tattoo Studio, 27 Liverpool Road, Penwortham, PR1 9XD.
This provides for 3 spaces, and is delimited from the Fleece
parking by BP signs, as per their website:
"Parking: Parking is available at the front of the property for
up to 3 cars or for up to an hour on the Fleece car park." The
images show the access from the Fleece and the demakation of the
carpark and area [add images to show this]
Again, the NtK does not include evidence to confirm that the
Driver parked in the controlled space, and not the InKarma car
park
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would
fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking
companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained
and is in correct working order.
Britannia Parking have not provided records with the location of
the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times
of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and
synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to
ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
4. ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven
Britannia Parking relies on ANPR. The operator must prove that
the ANPR system is accurate, properly maintained, correctly
synchronised, and that the images and timestamps are reliable.
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of:
a) maintenance, calibration and audit records for the ANPR
system for the period around the material date
b) evidence that the system clock was accurate and synchronised
c) the full ANPR log for this vehicle on the material date to
rule out missing reads or double-dip errors
d) evidence of appropriate manual checks before issuing the
charge
As can be seen from the NtK images provided, there are not time
stamps on the ANPR images, but times and dates have been claimed
separately. If Britannia Parking cannot provide strict proof of
reliability and integrity, the allegation is not proven and the
charge must be cancelled
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal
on this ground.
4. No proof of landowner authority – Britannia Parking must
evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f)
Euro Car Parks has not produced definitive proof that it has
authority from the landowner (or a party with sufficient
interest in the land) to operate at this site, issue parking
charges, and pursue them.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires written
authorisation and specifies what that authorisation must
evidence. Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof by producing
evidence that satisfies all requirements of PPSCoP section
14.1(a) to (f), including:
a) the identity of the landowner or the party with sufficient
interest in the land
b) the exact land to which the authorisation applies, with
clearly defined boundaries
c) the start date, end date and duration of the authorisation
and confirmation it was in force on the material date
d) the scope of the operator’s authority and what enforcement
activity is permitted
e) the operator’s authority to issue charges and pursue them in
its own name
f) any conditions, exemptions, or restrictions governing
enforcement
A generic witness statement, summary letter, or heavily redacted
agreement does not provide definitive proof of authority. Unless
Britannia Parking produces evidence addressing all of PPSCoP
14.1(a) to (f), POPLA must find that landowner authority is not
proven and the charge must be cancelled.
5. Evidence is provided, by witness statement, that the driver
was using the Fleece Pub, as a patron, on the day in question.
This confirms that the driver would have been allowed to park in
the Fleece car park, if indeed they did do and did not park at
InKarma Tatto car park, and may have failed to fully enter the
vehicle reg plate correctly, in the terminal provided. POPLA's
own guidance (Scenario 2), on their website, suggests this to be
deemed an major keying error. Although this evidence was not
available for the original appeal to Britannia Parking, another
driver who was also issued with a NtK from Britannia Parking,
used such evidence (of a purchase) and had the PCN cancelled. In
light of this evidenece, I would request that POPLA cancel the
charge, to bring parity with other users of the car park who may
have demonstrate the same error
Conclusion
Britannia Parking cannot transfer liability to the keeper
because the Notice to Keeper fails PoFA, including a clear
failure to comply with
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no statutory invitation for the keeper to
pay);
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) (no proven a “period of parking”,
relying instead on claimed timestamps)
further, no liability may exist in respect of
PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f) (failed to provide definitive proof of
landowner authority)
Failed to prove ANPR reliability.
Have not followed PPSCoP Annex F(3)(g).
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs
Britannia Parking to cancel the parking charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any comments, suggestions, corrections etc. would be gratefully
received. I have to sumbit before Friday 6th Feb
Cheers
#Post#: 108456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: February 2, 2026, 3:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Images relating to the above post, in respect of PoFA 9(a)
failure to determine period of parking
The driver could have parked in an uncontrolled carpark
HTML https://ibb.co/gM9dC0QY
Entrance to InKarma carpark
HTML https://ibb.co/XZfqzzcp
Overhead view of car parks
#Post#: 108582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: February 3, 2026, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This will looks to be the appeal I will send to POPLA. It
includes advice received from here. If there is anything that
anyone thinks, please add reply.
Many thanks
Grounds to appeal
POPLA APPEAL – Britannia Parking
PCN number: A7264301
Vehicle registration: xxxx xxx
Date of event: 07/12/2025
Location: Preston - Fleece Inn, 39 Liverpool road, PR1 9XD
Date of appeal to Britannia Parking rejection: 09/01/2026
Date of appeal to POPLA:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as
keeper only. The driver will not be identified.
No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with
PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.
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.
1. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to: (i) state
that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and
a current address for service for the driver, and (ii) invite
the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The wording on this Notice does not “invite the keeper to pay”
the unpaid parking charges. Instead it tells the keeper that if
they were not the driver they should provide the driver’s full
name and address and pass the notice to the driver, and it
threatens that if the keeper does not provide the driver’s
details the operator may pursue the keeper. That is a request to
identify the driver (and a threat), not the statutory invitation
to the keeper to pay.
Parliament deliberately used the phrase “invite the keeper to
pay” in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). A notice that omits that mandatory
invitation and replaces it with a demand for driver details is
not compliant with PoFA. As a result, Britannia Parking cannot
rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to
the registered keeper.
PoFA paragragh 9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the
two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices'
separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a
complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - this NtK
contains no such wording.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if
a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as
follows:
"At the current time, Britannia Parking (the creditor) does not
know both the name and a current address for service for the
driver.
The keeper is therefore invited to pay the unpaid parking
charges,
Or
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 this notice onto the driver."
No such paragraph exist in the NtK. On this basis, POPLA is
therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground.
2. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(h).
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.
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.
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.
3. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 4(4).
PoFA Paragraph 4(1) states that the creditor's right to recover
unpaid parking charges from the Keeper:
"may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given."
This is because any liability for parking charges lies strictly
with the driver. Only the driver could have been deemed to enter
a contract with Britannia Parking, at the time of parking, and
if the keeper was not the driver, then no contact could have
been agreed and no liability could exists.
The wording on the NtK contradicts this. It States:
" You have 28 days to pay, appeal or transfer liability from the
date of this notice"
As the keeper, I have no liabilty, but the driver may have.
According to PoFA paragraph 4(4), liability could transfer from
the driver to the keeper, but only after 28 days from the date
of the NtK, and the NtK being compliant with all the condidtions
of PoFA schedule 4. Britannia Parkings insistance that I can
transfer liability, means they consider me currently liable.
This is wrong in law. Only the driver could be liable, but they
do not know who that is, and they have not correctly requested
that information (as per point 1 above)and therefore requesting
I "transfer liability" is in direct contradiction to PoFA
Paaragraph 4(4).
And from the rejected appeal:
"Therefore, we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible
signage in the car park to draw *your*
attention to the terms and condition of the parking contract
that is on offer. *By leaving your* vehicle in
the car park without a validation *you* have broken the terms
and conditions and therefore we believe
the Parking Charge to be valid and correctly issued."
Britannia Parking are once again, infering that I am liable, as
they did with the NtK. This is contrary to the PoFA paragraph
9(2)(e)(i). They must state that they do not know the name of
the driver, and should have acknowldged this was not correct in
the original NtK. They do not appear to have engaged with my
reasons for appealing, leading me to assume that this appeal
rejection is simply cut and paste, with no desire to actually
engage with the appeal.
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal
on this ground.
4. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA
paragraph 9(2)(a).
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states the NtK must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"
No evidence of the required period of parking – entry and exit
times do not constitute parking times, and Parliament used the
word “parking” deliberately
Even if POPLA were to consider the allegation on its merits
(which is not necessary given the absence of keeper liability),
the charge is not proven because Brtiannia Parking has not
evidenced any “period of parking”.
PoFA uses the term “period of parking”. Parliament did not use
“time on site”, “period on site”, “length of stay”, or similar.
This distinction matters. A vehicle can enter and leave a site
for a period of time without being parked for that entire
period.
Britannia Parking is put to strict proof of the actual period of
parking and evidence supporting it. If the operator’s evidence
is merely ANPR entry/exit times, then the statutory concept of a
“period of parking” has not been evidenced and the allegation is
not made out. POPLA cannot substitute “time on site” for “period
of parking” because Parliament did not.
Actually, the NtK does not even include timestamps on the ANPR
images, but a panel that provides claimed time and date
information. The only data from the image that is emphasised, is
the Reg Plate, suggesting that no time stamp is available,
therefore no "period of parking" can be reliably confirmed.The
Britannia Parking NtK merely shows two images of a car, with
the number plate emphasised, corresponding with that of the
vehicle in question. The Notice to Keeper states:
“Entry: 07/12/2025 at 13:28:44
Exit: 07/12/2025 at 15:36:38”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of
parking. By Britannia Parking's own admission on their NtK,
these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the
vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and
this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Further, the entry and exit points of the carpark also provide
access to another, uncontrolled parking space, at the same
location:
InKarma Tattoo Studio, 27 Liverpool Road, Penwortham, PR1 9XD.
This provides for 3 spaces, and is delimited from the Fleece
parking by BP signs, as per their website:
"Parking: Parking is available at the front of the property for
up to 3 cars or for up to an hour on the Fleece car park." The
images show the access from the Fleece and the demakation of the
carpark and area [add images to show this]
Again, the NtK does not include evidence to confirm that the
Driver parked in the controlled space, and not the InKarma car
park
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times, and no
confirmation that parking actually occured on controlled land,
this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph
9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked
and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
As Britannia Parking has not proven a "period of parking" or
"relevant land", POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal
on this ground.
5. ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven
Britannia Parking relies on ANPR. The operator must prove that
the ANPR system is accurate, properly maintained, correctly
synchronised, and that the images and timestamps are reliable.
Britannia Parking is put to strict proof of:
a) maintenance, calibration and audit records for the ANPR
system for the period around the material date
b) evidence that the system clock was accurate and synchronised
c) the full ANPR log for this vehicle on the material date to
rule out missing reads or double-dip errors
d) evidence of appropriate manual checks before issuing the
charge
As can be seen from the NtK images provided, there are no time
stamps on the ANPR images, but times and dates have been claimed
separately. If Britannia Parking cannot provide strict proof of
reliability and integrity, the allegation is not proven and the
charge must be cancelled
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal
on this ground.
Conclusion
Britannia Parking cannot transfer liability to the keeper
because the Notice to Keeper fails PoFA, including a clear
failure to comply with
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no statutory invitation for the keeper to
pay);
PoFA 9(2)(h) (Creditor not identified);
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) (no proven a “period of parking” or
"relevant land" relying instead on claimed timestamps)
further, no liability may exist at all in respect of the
possibility that no parking contract was entered into.
Unreliable ANPR images.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs
Britannia Parking to cancel the parking charge.
#Post#: 111110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: autolycus
Date: February 25, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the outcome of your POPLA appeal
[member=7759]Rocketeer[/member] ? I'm dealing with a similar
situation myself at the moment and would be interested to know
how you got on.
#Post#: 111132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 25, 2026, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=8437]autolycus[/member] - they almost certainly won't
have an outcome yet. The operator has 21 days from when
Rocketeer submitted their appeal in which to respond with
evidence. When they respond, Rocketeer has a further 7 days to
provide a final response.
After that, it gets put in a queue for assessment. The waiting
time can be up to 3 months.
#Post#: 112433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia parking - NTK for not entering car reg in pub, the
Fleece carpark, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs
DIR By: Rocketeer
Date: March 8, 2026, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@ autolycus - Sorry for thr late reply. I have an acknowledgment
that the appeal has been registered and that is it so far. Are
you dealing with the same company or the same area?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page