Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Rocketeer on December 21, 2025, 03:21:45 pm
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/britannia-parking-group-ltd-failure-to-make-valid-payment-flamborough-north-land/)
-
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
-
You can use the following paragraphs in your POPLA appeal:
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.
-
Many thanks for you advice re: creditor
I will add this to my appeal and post here later.
Thank you
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
https://ibb.co/hFMZP1CV
https://ibb.co/x8dXVCk1
https://ibb.co/4n45QNxX
https://ibb.co/G4tYwmWL
https://ibb.co/JFyCSxbF
https://ibb.co/5fxxqPV
https://ibb.co/XxKMvWfd
https://ibb.co/MD0bdMx7
https://ibb.co/chhQdLmf
https://ibb.co/Kj9H7PPX
https://ibb.co/wZYGD9zW
https://ibb.co/5gvxCrFK
https://ibb.co/XfX64hZY
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