Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Britannia Parking trying it on with limited evidence!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
NotFair
Hi all,

Seeking advice for this one for a family member who isn't used to these, and have done their best so far. They've managed to get a POPLA code. I think the main grounds for appeal are inadequate evidence and no proper signage, but would appreciate any further input...there must be something I'm missing.

The alleged contravention is parking in a disabled space - but there is no signage to indicate that it's a disabled bay.

Posted everything here in sequence:

Windscreen PCN:


The driver didn't appeal this as they ended up in hospital as an emergency the day after parking, so forgot all about it. Lots of spelling mistakes all over the place, and black bars over important things rolleyes.gif . I wonder if it's worth putting that in to POPLA.

The keeper then got this NTK:



Recieved between day 28 and 56, so no breach of POFA there. But the evidence is awful - pictures don't show anything. Keeper submitted an appeal after researching online:

QUOTE
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require all photos taken, a clear image of the signage and an explanation of the allegation (e.g. if you have identified a wrong VRN input at a machine, say so, and explain why your Data Protection Officer has not simply rectified it, rather than trying to punish a driver for a matter where there is nothing to deter). Your PCN letter provides none of this in satisfactory detail.

Your windscreen ‘PCN’ and letter fall foul of the necessary conditions outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. By way of example: I have been given sight of the windscreen ‘PCN’ applied to the vehicle, and this notice contains a number of spelling mistakes and black bars which obstruct subject matter.

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, appraising all parties of the debate where Parliament agreed: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and that 'we make it up most of the time' (BBC Watchdog).

Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service.

Note also that as your online appeals website refuses an appeal (see screenshot attached), I am submitting this e-mail by post. As per the Section 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, this letter is deemed to have been delivered two working days following the date given above. I will obtain a Certificate of Posting to confirm this.

As you are a BPA member, either confirm that you will cease your pursuit of your claim or, provide me with a POPLA code, in your next communication.


Reply to this has now been recieved, with a POPLA code, and with the full set of photos:








My initial thought was that the photos...don't really show anything. There is one small sign on the side of the car park opposite to where the driver has parked (which is what they have taken photos to show), and nothing at all to show that the driver has breached any terms. The bay isn't marked disabled anywhere. I have inspected the site myself (I park there frequently) and the signage is terrible. It isn't clear at all that this particular bay is for disabled badge holders only.

I think the best grounds for POPLA are poor signage and evidence, but wondering if there are any other thoughts? The other possible grounds are that the windscreen PCN is laden with mistakes and obscured areas. They seem to have complied with POFA time limits.

Thanks!
ostell
Those photos show that there is a disabled symbol on the ground and the bays have the usual extended size common to disabled bays. As a BB holder myself I would be p****d off if I found a car there without a BB

Nevertheless the original Notice to keeper does not fully comply with POFA. 8 (2) (e) is partially there but not in the required form and therefore no keeper liability.

The rejection of the appeal is just a template. They are assuming that the keeper was the driver, which cannot be assumed, and that there have been failures of paragraph 9 of POFA.
NotFair
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 13:55) *
Those photos show that there is a disabled symbol on the ground and the bays have the usual extended size common to disabled bays. As a BB holder myself I would be p****d off if I found a car there without a BB


Ah, I didn't spot that. Good point. On first glance though, there is no extended area to the left of the car, and it appears theres only space for one car between the pillar and the ramp anyway. I don't know if parking there was intentional, but it looks like a normal bay to me on first appearances.
Sheffield Dave
Just for clarity - the white car is yours? So why are there also photos of black cars in a different bay?
NotFair
QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 16:19) *
Just for clarity - the white car is yours? So why are there also photos of black cars in a different bay?


The white car belongs to the person for whom I am posting, yes.

The black cars are in the bays opposite - I think these photos have been taken to show the signage (look at the pillar between the two black cars, small sign for each bay).

There is no sign anywhere near the white car. There is, as has been highlighted above, a disabled sign painted in the bay, however.

Edit: just noticed that the pictures don't show the windscreen PCN affixed to the vehicle. POFA 7 (4) seems to state it can be handed to someone instead of affixed to the vehicle, so I guess this isn't an obvious failure on Britannia's part.
GooseOnTheLoose
QUOTE (NotFair @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 16:19) *
Just for clarity - the white car is yours? So why are there also photos of black cars in a different bay?


The white car belongs to the person for whom I am posting, yes.

The black cars are in the bays opposite - I think these photos have been taken to show the signage (look at the pillar between the two black cars, small sign for each bay).

There is no sign anywhere near the white car. There is, as has been highlighted above, a disabled sign painted in the bay, however.

Edit: just noticed that the pictures don't show the windscreen PCN affixed to the vehicle. POFA 7 (4) seems to state it can be handed to someone instead of affixed to the vehicle, so I guess this isn't an obvious failure on Britannia's part.


These photos are also taken just over 2 months after the photo of the white car, according to their timestamps. Not sure how taking a photo of a sign months later would prove what signage was present at the time of the event. Either that or the timestamps on the photos have an issue and perhaps cannot be trusted?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.