Subject: Formal Complaint and Response to Britannia Parking's Refusal to Accept Appeal
TO: The Compliance Manager, Britannia Parking
Dear Ms Richardson,
I refer to your email dated 23 December 2024 regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). Please find my responses to the points raised:
1. Appeal Submission Channels:
Your refusal to accept the appeal submitted to your complaints email address contravenes the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (2024). Section 11.2 of the Code clearly states that where a parking operator receives a complaint that could be interpreted as an appeal, it must be treated as such for the purposes of meeting the timescales in Clause 8.4. My appeal fully complies with this requirement, and your failure to treat it as such breaches your obligations as a member of the BPA.
2. Non-PoFA Compliance and Keeper Liability:
You openly admit that your NtK fails to comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012, which means you cannot hold the vehicle's keeper liable—an elementary fact that seems to have escaped you. Your attempt to fall back on some outdated notion of 'implied contract' is not only irrelevant but highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of your own legal position.
The absence of PoFA compliance nullifies any claim against the keeper. If this basic legal principle is unclear to you, I would recommend passing this appeal to a responsible adult with the necessary understanding and legal training to explain it to you.
3. Driver Assumptions:
Your claim that the keeper is 'probably' the driver is speculative nonsense, unsupported by evidence or law. There is no legal requirement for the keeper to name the driver, and such baseless assumptions have been routinely dismissed in adjudications and court rulings. The registered keeper unequivocally denies any liability for this charge, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. If you find this concept difficult to grasp, I again suggest you consult someone with a firmer understanding of the law who can explain it to you.
4. Insurance Certificate Threat:
Your laughable suggestion that an insurance certificate could somehow be used to identify the driver betrays either a staggering ignorance of how insurance works or a deliberate attempt to intimidate. For your information, anyone with the owner's permission and appropriate third-party liability insurance can lawfully drive the vehicle, making your assertion not only baseless but moronic. If you genuinely believe this argument holds any weight, it really might be time to consult someone who actually understands the law before embarrassing yourselves further in court.
5. Validity of the Charge:
The validity of your parking charge is fundamentally undermined by your failure to comply with PoFA 2012. Without adherence to the statutory requirements, your NtK is toothless, and any attempt to enforce the charge against the keeper is legally untenable. Persisting with this baseless claim only serves to highlight the inadequacy of your processes and understanding of the law.
In light of the above, I reiterate my appeal and formally request that you cancel this PCN. Furthermore, your conduct, including your refusal to follow the BPA/IPC Code of Practice and reliance on speculative arguments, will be reported to the BPA and your client landowner.
Should you choose to reject this appeal, I require you to provide a POPLA code to allow me to escalate the matter and you can waste your money having an assessor point out Britannias embarrassing failings in understanding both the law and the Code of Practice. I remind you that any further correspondence that fails to address the substantive points raised here may be treated as harassment.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Registered Keeper