-
Please show us he response from Britannia with their moronic claim that they will have your insurance “inspected”. I will pass it on to “coupon mad” over on MSE as she is on the MHCLG Steering Committee of the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. This would be another good example of the rogue practices of these cowboy operators that the Act is designed to prevent.
-
-
Thank your providing us with the response from Britannia to your appeal. Here is the letter you received:
This is my suggested response to the email from Britannia:QuoteSubject: 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 Your attempt to fall back on some outdated notion of 'implied contract' is not only irrelevant but highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of your own legal position.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 -
-
Thankyou b789 I am sure there are a lot of people waiting for the response
-
-
Back to business.
B789 and others will be interested to know that my appeal,that had apparently not been sent to the "correct" department had to be resent to the "correct" department before it could be considered .I complied with this request and have received a response from the person who received my original email, that this has now been done. I await the decision. -
-
Hi, B789. I have now received the responce from Britannia who basically state the same stuff as in the first responce, where they say I had not sent my communication to the "correct" department.
-
-
Can you please show us all the correspondence since the response was that was crafted above was sent? Whilst we know that there is an intellectual malnourishment, certainly within the department that has been sent the response and most likely those that have responded to you so far, but we need the evidence of harassment so that, should you choose to do so, you can counterclaim should they issue a claim or simply sue them anyway.
-
-
I hope attatchment arrives here ? B789
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
I'm trying to decide if it's a clever ploy to scare the keeper into thinking the insurance certificate is some kind of slam dunk evidence, or
if they are just thick -
-
Seems to be here, i hope it's readable.... my computing skills are minimal. This is the only response i have recived from Britannia since i sent my appeal to the "correct" department
-
-
Yes Mick I think so.
I think i can see exactly the game they are playing.It is not blakcmail but it is certainly not the behaviour that i would expect from a decent company.It's rather more of a threat ......like .." pay up or take the consequences of messing with us !" -
-
Where on earth do you get the notion that Britannia or any of the other companies have an ounce of "decency" within them? I have no idea where this "kumbaya" idea of rainbows and fluffiness about unregulated, ex-clamper thugs who operate on the edge of lawfulness and beyond comes from.
That response to your appeal is evidence of their intellectual malnourishment and only serves to show how mendacious they can be when it comes to attempting to extort money out of you. Their only motive and reason d'être is to scam you out of your hard earned money.
As for the imbecilic threat about asking the judge to determine who is able to drive the vehicle... if that suggestion wasn't so moronic, it would be laughable. It is not the judges responsibility to determine who is eligible to drive the vehicle. It is the claimant burden to prove who was driving.
My comprehensive car policy gives me third party cover to allow me to drive ANY other vehicle as long as I have the owners permission. Millions of motorists have insurance policies that provide third party cover to drive vehicles other than the insured vehicle. Showing a judge your insurance policy proves absolutely nothing. IN the UK, it is the 'driver" who must be insured, not the vehicle.
Utter fecking eejits who wrote that appeal rejection. I can guarantee that this will never, ever get as far as a hearing in front of any judge. For now, just play the game and wait for the response to that letter. -
-
Thanks B789.and Mick, I understand that the insurance issue is a red-herring...and they know it.
In their last email (shown above), I am not clear of the meaning of the last 2 penultimate paras.
Do they mean that THEY are delaying reviewing or responding to my appeal until I comply with their demand for further info.Inferring,If i do not respond,it will bring us past THEIR deadline and I will be held to blame and suffer the consequences of THEIR deadline ?
In your last email were you thinking I should not reply to their last email ? -
-
Don't waste any more time and effort on them. The ball is in their court and they need to decide what they want to do next. Cancel the PCN or reject your points and issue with a POPLA code where you can make a second appeal that will cost them £35 if they want it assessed.
POPLA are likely to uphold the appeal but, they can be bit moronic from time to time, depending on the individual assessor (could be the tea boy that day) and if unsuccessful has no bearing on anything going forwards as the POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant if unsuccessful.
There are many options going forward and we just have to wait and see what develops. The only certain thing is that you won't be paying a penny to Britannia. -
-
Agreed - await a POPLA code.
If I were a betting man, I'd back Britannia to back out before they have to pay the POPLA fee. -
-
Hello Dwmb,
Its good to see you back on here. -
Agree x 1
View List