Show Posts - Wheelocks

Thanks all.I submitted the appeal and last week got a message from POPLA saying that the "Appeal has been withdrawn by the operator" and withdrawal reason given as "Not the driver Parking Charge Non Pofa" and that no further action is needed.I imagine this means that Britannia has cancelled the PCN and I await written confirmation from Britannia.Many thanks again

Quote from: b789 on 27 Mar, 2025 19:10Hilarious. Reply with the following...QuoteSubject: Re: Pathetic Attempt at Damage Control – PCN #[REFERENCE]Dear Britannia Parking,Thank you for your recent response to my formal complaint — a response so staggeringly inept, so devoid of legal coherence, that it deserves to be preserved in a glass case as a masterclass in how not to respond to a regulatory breach.Let’s be clear: I informed you, plainly and politely, that your Notice to Keeper was non-compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and that as such, you had no lawful basis to pursue the registered keeper for payment. Instead of acknowledging your error, you doubled down with a letter dated 26/02/2024, brazenly claiming that you had the right to recover the charge from me under PoFA.This is not a minor mistake. It is a knowing and deliberate misstatement of statutory law — a textbook breach of paragraph 8.1.1(d) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP), and of Clause C1.1 of your KADOE contract with the DVLA. You do not get to falsely threaten people with keeper liability under legislation you have utterly failed to comply with. That’s not “non-ideal training”; it’s misrepresentation. You should be grateful this is merely being escalated to regulators and not challenged before a judge.And yet, with astonishing audacity, your response tries to salvage this mess with the tired, wheezing argument that you can “still pursue the driver under the old implied contract theory.” Do you truly not grasp how pathetic this is?This desperate fallback has been booted out of court more often than a politician dodges a question. Judges are no longer tolerating operators like you clinging to it like a rubber ring on a sinking ship. You’re not clever. You’re not persuasive. You’re just repeating obsolete nonsense and hoping nobody notices. Spoiler: we notice.Then comes your pièce de résistance — the absurd fantasy that you’ll ask a judge to “review the insurance certificate” to magically identify the driver. Have you any idea how the civil court process works? The court will not embark on a speculative fishing expedition on your behalf because you couldn’t be bothered to gather proper evidence. This is small claims, not a psychic hotline.You compound your embarrassment by stating: “Not quoting PoFA does not mean the charge was incorrectly issued”. Let me explain this in words short enough for your compliance team to be able to digest: if you don’t meet PoFA requirements, you don’t get keeper liability. If you claim you do—when you don’t—you’ve misrepresented the legal position. You cannot have it both ways. Your claim fails at the starting gate.Your conduct reeks of opportunism, ignorance, and contempt for both regulatory compliance and the public you routinely mislead. You are an embarrassment to the industry — and that is no small feat.Let me make this simple:• Cancel the charge• Issue the formal apology you owe• Reflect seriously on the astonishing incompetence that led you to send such a responseFailure to do so will result in a formal complaint to the DVLA and BPA, including a copy of your unintentionally hilarious letter — a document so riddled with legal and logical fallacies it could be used as a training tool, were it not so embarrassing.I look forward to watching you try to explain this to your trade association.Yours sincerely,[Your Name]Thank you again. I have replied as suggested and await their response.I am mindful that the POPLA appeal deadline is approaching and would like to send this off early as I will be away next week and over Easter. Can some one point me to a template for POLA appeal based on a late issued NTK?

back page [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: DWMB2 on 01 Mar, 2025 23:29That response is risible. So much so that I'd be minded to file a formal complaint about their conduct, to complaints@britannia-parking.co.uk.Here's a suggestion. I've knocked it together fairly quickly so others may suggest improvements. You could also attach a copy of that letter to your complaint for clarity.QuoteSubject: Formal Complaint, PCN #[REFERENCE]Dear Sirs,I am writing to make a formal complaint about your correspondence in respect of PCN #[REFERENCE], which amounts to a breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (PPSSCoP) and, by virtue of this, your KADOE contract with the DVLA. Following receipt of your PCN, I appealed as the registered keeper, pointing out that due to your failure to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA), you are unable to recover the charge from me as the keeper. You responded with a letter dated 26/02/2024, which is attached, claiming to be notifying me under PoFA that you have the right to recover the charge from me as the keeper. This is a clear breach of the PPSSCoP and the KADOE contract for the following reasons:1. Breach of the PPSSCoPSection 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP states:8.1.1 The parking operator must not serve a notice or include material on its website which in its design and/or language:d) state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.In my appeal, I explained that Britannia had failed to serve a notice compliant with the requirements of PoFA, having given the notice outside of the relevant period of 14 days. You then responded on 26/02/2024 with the attached letter, claiming the ability to recover the charges from me under PoFA. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, and a breach of 8.1.1 of the PPSSCoP.As per Annex H of the PPSSCoP, this constitutes at least a Level 1 sanction for non-conformance.2. Breach of the KADOE ContractClause C1.1 of your KADOE Contract with DVLA states:The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.By knowingly and falsely claiming compliance with PoFA, you have failed to comply with the terms of your KADOE contract, bringing into question your suitability to have access to sensitive registered keeper data.As a result of these serious failings you should:

• Confirm that the parking charge has been cancelled and that no further action will be taken
• Explain why your correspondence falsely claims the ability to recover charges under PoFA when you are, or ought to be, fully aware this is not true
• Issue a formal apology

I expect a thorough response to my complaint within 14 days. Following your response, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the British Parking Association, and the DVLA.Yours etc...I received the reply now for the complaint. Effectivity they have dismissed it. And interesting they say the Notice to keeper is not subject to Seclude 4 of POHFA 2012, and hence the 14 day notification requirement does not apply. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

duplicate

Quote from: b789 on 22 Mar, 2025 18:31Why did you wait until the 8th to send the formal complaint. They are required to acknowledge or respond to a formal complaint within 14 days. When 14 days are up, if you've not yet had a response to the formal complaint, come back and remind us.You have until 19th April to submit a POPLA appeal. In the meantime, do bit of your own research on the forum for other POPLA appeals to get an idea of how to structure it.It was just 5 days after discussing on here ( actually sent it off Friday 7th of March). The first day I could make it to the post office to get proof of postage.

Back page [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks again. I sent off the formal complaint on the 8th. Haven't heard anything back from that yet.However I received the the expected appeal rejection with the POPLA Code.Is the next step to appeal via POPLA?Pics below.... [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thank you, I will send this off this week.

And the second one.... [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: DWMB2 on 11 Feb, 2025 22:38If I were you, first things first, I would get an appeal sent off, using the wording I suggested further up the thread. This gets the appeal wheels in motion and deals with the live parking charge, whilst not preventing you from taking any other action you may wish to as outlined by b789.Many thanks to all for the help so far. Sent off the appeal and with the wording as advised above, stating just that I would not be naming the driver as the Notice to Keeper was deemed to be delivered outside the 14days. I have received these to letters back. The first one acknowledging the appeal and second which does say if my appeal was rejected and with no POPLA Code as requested ( so I assume still fishing for information). Though I am not sure if it is related to my appeal or a standard letter sent out if they haven't received a payment. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: b789 on 11 Feb, 2025 19:32Have you checked this out?However, as the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant, that is always going to be your main point of appeal. If the issues is due to what is known a "double dip" where the middle two ANPR photos have not been scrutinised, they will have also breached your GDPR by unlawfully requesting your DVLA data.They are required to check all ANPR data for what is, in this case, "orphan images" which would have confirmed that the vehicle was not on site for the duration that are claiming. This is a breach of the BPAIPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 7.3(d) which states:QuotePhotographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.Note 1 to that section goes on to state:QuoteNOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land...By having failed to comply with the PPSCoP Britannia has therefore breached the KADOE contract with the DVLA and should be reported to them for this breach. Also, you should sue them for breach of your GDPR under the Data Protection Act 2018 and should claim damages and compensation.Thank you. The website shows only the two images in the PCNK and nothing else. Reading online, it appear the Britannia also operate the parking for the Waitrose and use those two cameras in tandem. If they don't register a car as entering Waitrose they assume you have Parked/Stopped in the No Parking area and send a PCNK. I can only imagine therefore the Waitrose APNR did not pick up the front plate due to its location on the windscreen on arrival, but would definitely have got the rear plate when the car left Waitrose.

Quote from: DWMB2 on 11 Feb, 2025 18:35For completeness, can you show us the back page? The good news for you is that, based on those dates, they have issued the notice too late to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (there's a link in my signature underneath my posts), meaning they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the driver, who they don't know, to the registered keeper.You can therefore appeal with the below:Dear Sirs,I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me 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.There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am 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,If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.Thank you. What is the time limit for them to issue the notice please? Picture of the back of the notice below. [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: DWMB2 on 11 Feb, 2025 18:14You have obscured some important information... We need to see all the dates and times.Oops sorry, I have change it

Hi, I am after some advice after getting my first Parking Charge Notice to Keeper which arrived today (image hopefully below), from Britannia Parking. The date of contravention is 26th January 2025 I have not responded. The Charge is Parked/Stopped in a no parking area. The evidence provided are 2 images from an APNR camera of the driver driving into the access road and leaving the access road just under 2 hours apart. This access road leads to a Waitrose carpark further down the road where there is a 1.5hour free stay limit ( no purchase required). Entry and exit to this carpark is monitored by a second set of APNR cameras. The facts are the driver drove down the the road at the time indicated in the first picture dropped a passenger off at Waitrose and left. Returned the second time approx. 1 hour later, parked in Waitrose, collected said passenger and then left under an hour later at the time indicated on the PCNK. At no time did the driver stop or park in a no parking area ( the No Parking are is naturally not the Waitrose carpark, but the access road to the carpark)Naturally I want to appeal on the basis that the driver did not stop or park in the No parking area. The evidence present do not show the car stopped or parked, but two images of the car entering and leaving just under 2hours apart. The front numberplate was temporarily on the front windscreen after falling of.  I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.Thank you [ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]