Free Traffic Legal Advice

Reply regarding my appeal:



Thank you for your appeal received on 11/08/2025 regarding the above Parking Charge.
We have considered your appeal and comments you have made; in conjunction with any evidence
you have provided and the photographs we have on record.

The Parking Charge was issued to your vehicle because you over stayed the maximum time
permitted for parking at this car park. The store operates as a 90 minutes maximum stay car park.
Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their
Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. We meet all signage requirements
under the BPA's Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and
conditions.

British Parking Association Code of Practice - Consideration and Grace Periods
Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted (Max stay), or where
drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this
would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added
to the end of a parking event before a Parking Charge can be issued.
Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no
requirement for Britannia Parking to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace
period.

We give motorist a 10 minute grace period at the end of parking event to leave the car park before a
Parking Charge is issued, which is within the BPA guidelines.
After 90 minutes of parking, your 10 minute grace will commence, if the driver has not left the car
park by the time the 10 minute grace period has been reached, a Parking Charge will be issued for
breaching the terms and conditions of the car park.

Therefore, we consider the Parking Charge to be valid and correctly issued.
Having considered the content of your letter and our internal review, as this is your first Parking
Charge appeal, we are prepared to cancel the notice; with the understanding that you will not
continue to breach the terms and conditions; as you are now aware of the maximum stay time
permitted for this car park.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department

Britannia Parking


Thanks for your help all, particularly @b789

Thanks, will reply and let you know.

As soon as i read "This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant" i was thinking why the hell are they still pursuing?!

Just wanted to update this by saying i replied to them with the above and have had no response from them.

So i guess it worked, thanks for your advice 

You may want to show us exactly what you intend to put in your appeal before you submit anything. Better to have it critiqued rather than piling in with possible errors.

Draft response below:

Dear Sirs,

In response to your last letter regarding NPC 13440136, you have stated that you require the drivers details otherwise you will hold the keeper liable however your Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not state or invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) statins that the NTK must invite the Keeper to pay the charge.

Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific legal requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK must include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name and address of the driver.

The NtK fails to provide this explicit invitation and therefore you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my person details have been removed from your records.

Yours faithfully

OK. So Britannia is relying on PoFA in their NtK to be able to hold the Keeper liable for the charge should the driver not be identified.

As you have seen, in their response, they have stated that they require the drivers details otherwise they will hold you, the Keeper liable for the charge. However, there is a technical failure in their NtK that means that it is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, meaning that they can't hold you, the Keeper, liable.

Unless you or anyone else can find it, there is no "invitation", not any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay the charge. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically states that the NtK MUST invite the Keeper to pay the charge.

Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific legal requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK must include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name and address of the driver.

Simply stating in the NtK that the parking charge must be paid is not sufficient. The wording must provide the keeper with a clear choice: either pay the charge or provide the driver’s details. This is important because PoFA is designed to protect keepers who were not the driver or the driver has not been disclosed, and this invitation is a mandatory step for transferring liability from the driver to the keeper.

In your case, the NtK fails to provide this explicit invitation. Instead of inviting you, the keeper, to pay the charge or provide the driver’s details, it simply demands payment. This does not comply with PoFA, because a demand for payment assumes keeper liability, which cannot apply unless all legal steps have been followed, including this invitation.

It's important to understand that partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA is insufficient. If any of the required elements are missing or incorrectly presented, Britannia cannot hold the keeper liable for the charge.

Therefore, you should not reveal the identity of the driver. By doing so, Britannia would then be able to pursue the driver directly, removing the protection PoFA offers you as the keeper.

While Britannia is likely to reject your initial appeal, you can then escalate the matter to POPLA. POPLA is required to follow the law, and you should point out that the NtK does not comply with PoFA because it fails to include the explicit invitation required by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). POPLA should then uphold your appeal and cancel the parking charge.

However, if the POPLA assessor fails to agree with this point, remember that the county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. Only a judge can decide whether you owe the operator a debt, and non-compliance with PoFA is a strong legal defence. Should the matter ever escalate to a court claim that is not discontinued or struck out, a judge will carefully consider whether the NtK meets the requirements of PoFA, and non-compliance will likely lead to the claim being dismissed.

Thanks very much for this information, i will reply with the above, will update you on how it goes.

Morning all,

I received a ticket for my car parked in a private car park, the driver wasnt me, it was a friend who didnt put in the number plate at the venue.

I have submitted an appeal stating the following:

I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

 

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

They have come back stating the below.

Can anyone advise me further? Thanks.