-
A long winded way of them saying "We give up"
Good result!
-
I'd like to thank everyone for all the good advice, I'm not sure whether to keep these letters as a trophy or bin them as a joke.
Big Thank you.
-
Please today letter
This case is now closed
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
(https://i.imgur.com/7UFrmEp.jpeg)
You do realise you are dealing with company staffed by intellectually malnourished individuals.
-
Please see reply from my last letter ; I will await a call or further letter thank you
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Edit: clearly crossed with b789's post
Personally, I'd ignore, let the 14 days elapse, and wait for them to either cancel the charge or issue you a POPLA code.
I would also be minded to immediately lodge a complaint with the British Parking Association, attaching a copy of the 2 letters sent on the same day, pointing out that Britannia are saying that the notice is not issued using the provisions of PoFA, then in another letter claiming that you are being notified of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. We can help you draft something (although I don't have much time immediately).
If you must reply to Britannia, I'd keep it short and sweet:
Dear Sirs,
We are surprised to receive two letters, issued on the same day, which directly contradict one another. The first is a near-verbatim duplicate of your previous correspondence, confirming that the parking charge is not PoFA compliant, whilst the second letter bizarrely claims that Britannia have the right to recover the charge from us as the registered keeper, under PoFA. Both statements cannot be true.
As you have clearly failed to properly read or address our previous comments, I refer you to our previous letter of [DATE]. Our position remains unchanged: cancel the charge or issue a POPLA code.
Yours...
-
Toy with their intellectually malnourished little minds.
Subject: Formal Response to Contradictory Correspondence
Dear Britannia Parking,
I refer to the two contradictory letters received in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
One letter alleges that the PCN is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), while the other concedes that it is not PoFA compliant but asserts that payment can still be pursued under the outdated "implied contract with the driver" arguments predating PoFA. These inconsistencies are an embarrassment to your organisation and further demonstrate the unprofessionalism and amateurism that appears to underpin your operations.
It is not my responsibility to educate Britannia Parking on basic legal principles or the requirements of compliance. However, I will no longer waste my time engaging with what is clearly the work of intellectually malnourished amateurs.
You now have three options:
1. Cancel the PCN.
2. Issue a POPLA code so that this matter can be independently adjudicated.
3. Refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
Should you fail to take one of these actions, I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and any other relevant authorities to review your conduct and practices.
This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter appropriately.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
On behalf of [Company}
-
Please see these two letters, Letter 1 is cancelled by letter 2
your advice as always very welcome.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So I had reply to my letter (copied from the above link (thnk you very much)
see scasnned image.
Just a note I got a new Parking Ticket from Preston NHS, see my new page. Thanks and Happy New Year everyone. and Just a note ; I'm not collecting tickets. Please read new post and see if I made a mistake.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
thank you I will. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas and this letter will be tomorrows post, I'm think I may put a card with it as well.
-
We all know they blindly use boilerplate letters for communications, but this shows they don't even bother to get a human being to take even a cursory glance to check the boilerplate they're using is suitable for the circumstances. Unless of course they think there are parents somewhere in Burnley who thought fit to name their child "Xircom Systems Ltd".
Use b789's suggestion - it's more thorough than the one I knocked up, and now covers the point I made re. impossibility of the keeper being the driver.
-
(Edited to add the very valuable point made by @DWMB2 above) I suggest the following response:
Xircom Systems Ltd
The Company Secretary
31 Tiverton Drive
Briercliffe
Burnley
BB10 2JT
Date: [Insert Today's Date]
Britannia Parking
7th Floor
County Gates House
300 Poole Road
Poole
BH12 1AZ
Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 13581064 – Vehicle BL70 FLN
Dear Britannia Parking,
Thank you for your letter dated 12 December 2024. We note your comments regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and your assertion of liability under the so-called “implied-contract-with-the-driver” rules pre-dating the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
For clarity, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, Xircom Systems Ltd reiterates that:
1. Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with PoFA 2012:
As you have already admitted in your letter, the NtK fails to comply with the requirements set out under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. Consequently, you cannot rely on this legislation to hold the registered keeper liable for this charge.
2. No obligation exists to identify the driver:
We reject your suggestion that Xircom Systems Ltd, as the registered keeper, is under any legal obligation to identify the driver. This position has been upheld in numerous court cases, and we are not required to transfer liability where PoFA has not been adhered to.
3. Flawed assumption regarding the keeper and driver:
We are perplexed by your suggestion that “Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else.” In this case, the keeper is a limited company, meaning the probability that the keeper was the driver is unequivocally zero.
4. Your reliance on outdated, pre-PoFA concepts is unfounded:
Your reference to “implied contract with the driver” as a basis for pursuing the keeper is both outdated and legally tenuous. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, we invite you to present your claim in court, where we will robustly defend our position. It is worth noting that courts expect parking companies to comply with the legislative framework provided by PoFA, and any attempt to circumvent it would likely be viewed unfavourably.
5. Misleading statements about liability:
Your claim that “the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge” is misleading. Without identifying the driver, and without compliance with PoFA, you have no lawful basis to hold the registered keeper liable.
6. Baseless threats will not be entertained:
Your suggestion that Xircom Systems Ltd might be “held liable” under pre-PoFA principles is entirely without merit. Should you proceed with a court claim, we will seek recovery of all costs, including but not limited to legal expenses, incurred in defending against such a spurious action.
In conclusion, we suggest you carefully consider the legal basis for your claim. If you genuinely believe you have a case, you are welcome to pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels. Otherwise, we suggest you cancel this Parking Charge immediately and confirm such cancellation in writing.
Failure to cancel this charge will result in a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA), highlighting your attempts to mislead the registered keeper regarding liability and your failure to adhere to PoFA requirements.
We look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
[Insert Name]
For and on behalf of Xircom Systems Ltd
-
Like the response, I send it over "as you know I do all this by letter so that will be fun also." Thanks and Merry Christmas.
-
"Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else"
Superb, how do they suppose a limited company can drive a car? ;D
You could either ignore them, or have a bit of fun:
Dear Sirs,
We note your response to our appeal re. parking charge number ______. We welcome your confirmation that your notice is not PoFA compliant, and that we therefore have no liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
We are perplexed by your suggestion that "Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else". In this case, the keeper is a limited company, meaning the probability that the keeper was the driver is zero.
We will not be providing the driver's details. As you are unable to hold us liable as the keeper of the vehicle, we advise you to cancel the charge.
Yours...
-
Eventually had a reply from Britannia, see image attached[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I finally had a reply back from Britannia, Please see image attached. Reading this I could just turn around and say this was one of Ex employees who now lives in New Zealand, he was in the UK and picked up some spare work whilst visiting, they would have prove different. I will wait your comments and advice. Thanks and no doubt a Merry Christmas to all
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OK so I had a letter back from Britannia ; please see attached. Say very little so its a waiting game ; only issue they have is that they going to have to write to me every time no email, and I'll have to write back. @ITS a slow Donkey
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Letter arrived. Signed for by 09:11AM 19/11/24
-
Thank you for the advise. I keep you updated
-
The message has got through that all that matters.
Providing they sign for it.
If you want to do things by post that is your call, although if you are I would recommend using regular first class post for the reasons I outlined previously. You enjoy a presumption of delivery with first class post, no such presumption if a 'signed for' delivery does not arrive.
Anyway, with regards to this appeal, they should respond within 28 days (beginning from the day on which your appeal is received, if it arrives in time for the deadline). Sometimes, where appeals are successful, they don't bother letting you know, but don't assume a lack of response is a good thing - if they don't respond within the time allowed, chase them.
-
Yes thank you for you comment on my posting a lettter, I know I can do online and free email but I'm old school and like to have a paper trail and a signature is cost what £2.50 not a big deal and I have what i like in business a paper trail. thank you all for your comments, let see how it goes. The message has got through that all that matters.
-
Ideally, the online appeals Portal is the first port of call.
-
Why on earth did you waste money and time on recorded delivery? If you are going to insist on sending anything by post, all you need is a free "proof of posting" certificate from any Post Office.
Better still, use email. No paper, no money and free proof of sending and receipt (as long as it isn't bounced back as undeliverable).
-
You'd be much better off submitting online.
A general issue with Recorded Delivery (aka signed for) is that if the recipient refuses to sign for the delivery, then all you're left with is proof the letter has not arrived. In future, if communication can't be done online, regular first class post with a free certificate of posting is better, as you enjoy a presumption that the letter was delivered 2 working days after posting.
Appealing online means the appeal is received immediately.
-
Letter sent today by recorded delivery, "Cut & Paste" No Name mentioned and signed by a member of staff with a very un-readable signature. I'll keep you all updated and thank you.
-
They don't appear to be making any effort to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted) to hold the registered keeper liable. As such, only the driver, who they do not know, is liable. The company can therefore appeal along the lines of the below:
Dear Sirs,
We have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. We note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold us liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.
As a body corporate, we cannot have been driving. There is no obligation for us to name the driver and we will not be doing so. We are therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.
Yours,
You are appealing as the keeper (in this case the company). If appealing online make sure you only tick any boxes etc. that identify you as the keeper, and keep a close eye on your spam emails for their reply. The deadline for appeals is approaching so be sure not to miss it.
-
reverse side on original notice.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We don’t need to see the reminder. However we need to see the wording on the back of the original NtK.
-
Just a note the number writen on the top of the first scanned image is Britannia registered VAT Number ; I*'m sure at some point this and the fact they charging compaines without declaring VAT will be and issue to HMRC.
-
Please see attached JPG ; I removed Company name & Address and the Registration ; if you need these details please reply. Thanks You
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sorry to hear about the driver's unfortunate circumstances.
The VAT is a sideshow, and if there was an issue, this would not on its own necessarily affect whether or not the contractual charge is owed.
If you show us the parking charge notice then we can advise on any technical flaws with it.
-
Car registered to the company
should Vat not be on all charges made from a registered UK company to a UK company?
Not tried Waitrose, I can ask as the person drving was going to visit a specalist "They have Stage 4 Cancer and is on Palliative care, they we going to see a finance specalist to sort out Pension, Business Transfer etc.. I suspect they also did some shopping.
-
Please have a read of this and then post a suitably redacted image of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) you received but leave all dates and times visible. We don't need to see any reminders or upcoming debt collector letters.
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
This is confusing:
The car is registered to a person but to my company.
Is it registered to a named person or is it registered to the company name?
It is too late to appeal now if you've received the reminder. If the vehicle was parked at Waitrose, was it because the driver or someone in the vehicle was shopping there? If so, have you tried asking Waitrose to get the PCN cancelled? Don't simply go to a lowly customer service bod, aim as high up the management food chain as possible.
This is likely to end up as a claim which can be easily defended. In most cases, a defended claim is eventually discontinued. They rely on their victims to pay up once the threat of litigation starts. They rarely want to go all the way to a hearing.
With regards to the VAT aspect. There is no VAT on PCNs. Whilst the NtK is only an invoice, not a "fine", and VAT is not applicable, they will shoot themselves in the foot eventually as they will add a "fake" £70 which is VAT liable but will conveniently forget to show the VAT element, the defrauding HMRC. We deal with that separately, as and when.
-
Morning everyone, I have received a Parking Charge Notice, saying the car was 2Parked Longer that the maximum time permitted" approx. 34 minutes in Wilmslow. The car is registered to a person but to my company. My company is VAT and UK Registered. From what I see I don't have to disclose the driver and the letters are addressed to "The Company Secretary", I type a response but never bothered to send it, then I received a second letter "Final Reminder" again this addressed to "The Company Secretary" ; both letters do not show an invoice number or a VAT number, they do have the Company House Registration Number in small print at the bottom. I not sure as a VAT Registered Company I should pay this as it does not disclose how the fine is broken down, what per-portions is VAT, is the £70.00 Total Net of VAT
The final reminder also say “that entering the car park “Waitrose” The driver of the car has contractually agreed to the terms and conditions. Any Advise on how best to move forward.
if you need scanned images of the letters let me know. Thanks