3. Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Britannia Parking Charge Notice  (Read 2172 times)

0 Members and 1084 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #15 on: »
Thank you for the advise. I keep you updated
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #16 on: »
Letter arrived. Signed for by 09:11AM 19/11/24
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #17 on: »
OK so I had a letter back from Britannia ; please see attached. Say very little so its a waiting game ; only issue they have is that they going to have to write to me every time no email, and I'll have to write back. @ITS a slow Donkey

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #18 on: »
I finally had a reply back from Britannia, Please see image attached. Reading this I could just turn around and say this was one of Ex employees who now lives in New Zealand, he was in the UK and picked up some spare work whilst visiting, they would have prove different. I will wait your comments and advice. Thanks and no doubt a Merry Christmas to all

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #19 on: »
Eventually had a reply from Britannia, see image attached [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #20 on: »
Quote
"Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else"
Superb, how do they suppose a limited company can drive a car?  ;D

You could either ignore them, or have a bit of fun:

Dear Sirs,

We note your response to our appeal re. parking charge number ______. We welcome your confirmation that your notice is not PoFA compliant, and that we therefore have no liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

We are perplexed by your suggestion that "Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else". In this case, the keeper is a limited company, meaning the probability that the keeper was the driver is zero.

We will not be providing the driver's details. As you are unable to hold us liable as the keeper of the vehicle, we advise you to cancel the charge.

Yours...
Logged
Funny Funny x 1 View List
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #21 on: »
Like the response, I send it over "as you know I do all this by letter so that will be fun also." Thanks and Merry Christmas.
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #22 on: »
(Edited to add the very valuable point made by @DWMB2 above) I suggest the following response:

Quote
Xircom Systems Ltd
The Company Secretary
31 Tiverton Drive
Briercliffe
Burnley
BB10 2JT

Date: [Insert Today's Date]

Britannia Parking
7th Floor
County Gates House
300 Poole Road
Poole
BH12 1AZ

Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 13581064 – Vehicle BL70 FLN

Dear Britannia Parking,

Thank you for your letter dated 12 December 2024. We note your comments regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and your assertion of liability under the so-called “implied-contract-with-the-driver” rules pre-dating the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

For clarity, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, Xircom Systems Ltd reiterates that:

1. Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) is non-compliant with PoFA 2012:

As you have already admitted in your letter, the NtK fails to comply with the requirements set out under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012. Consequently, you cannot rely on this legislation to hold the registered keeper liable for this charge.

2. No obligation exists to identify the driver:

We reject your suggestion that Xircom Systems Ltd, as the registered keeper, is under any legal obligation to identify the driver. This position has been upheld in numerous court cases, and we are not required to transfer liability where PoFA has not been adhered to.

3. Flawed assumption regarding the keeper and driver:

We are perplexed by your suggestion that “Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else.” In this case, the keeper is a limited company, meaning the probability that the keeper was the driver is unequivocally zero.

4. Your reliance on outdated, pre-PoFA concepts is unfounded:

Your reference to “implied contract with the driver” as a basis for pursuing the keeper is both outdated and legally tenuous. If you wish to pursue this line of argument, we invite you to present your claim in court, where we will robustly defend our position. It is worth noting that courts expect parking companies to comply with the legislative framework provided by PoFA, and any attempt to circumvent it would likely be viewed unfavourably.

5. Misleading statements about liability:

Your claim that “the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge” is misleading. Without identifying the driver, and without compliance with PoFA, you have no lawful basis to hold the registered keeper liable.

6. Baseless threats will not be entertained:

Your suggestion that Xircom Systems Ltd might be “held liable” under pre-PoFA principles is entirely without merit. Should you proceed with a court claim, we will seek recovery of all costs, including but not limited to legal expenses, incurred in defending against such a spurious action.

In conclusion, we suggest you carefully consider the legal basis for your claim. If you genuinely believe you have a case, you are welcome to pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels. Otherwise, we suggest you cancel this Parking Charge immediately and confirm such cancellation in writing.

Failure to cancel this charge will result in a formal complaint to the British Parking Association (BPA), highlighting your attempts to mislead the registered keeper regarding liability and your failure to adhere to PoFA requirements.

We look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

[Insert Name]

For and on behalf of Xircom Systems Ltd
« Last Edit: December 19, 2024, 03:54:12 pm by b789 »
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #23 on: »
We all know they blindly use boilerplate letters for communications, but this shows they don't even bother to get a human being to take even a cursory glance to check the boilerplate they're using is suitable for the circumstances. Unless of course they think there are parents somewhere in Burnley who thought fit to name their child "Xircom Systems Ltd".

Use b789's suggestion - it's more thorough than the one I knocked up, and now covers the point I made re. impossibility of the keeper being the driver.
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #24 on: »
thank you I will. Hope you all have a Merry Christmas and this letter will be tomorrows post, I'm think I may put a card with it as well.
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #25 on: »
So I had reply to my letter (copied from the above link (thnk you very much)
see scasnned image.
Just a note I got a new Parking Ticket from Preston NHS, see my new page. Thanks and Happy New Year everyone. and Just a note ; I'm not collecting tickets. Please read new post and see if I made a mistake.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #26 on: »
Please see these two letters, Letter 1 is cancelled by letter 2
your advice as always very welcome.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #27 on: »
Toy with their intellectually malnourished little minds.

Quote
Subject: Formal Response to Contradictory Correspondence

Dear Britannia Parking,

I refer to the two contradictory letters received in relation to the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

One letter alleges that the PCN is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), while the other concedes that it is not PoFA compliant but asserts that payment can still be pursued under the outdated "implied contract with the driver" arguments predating PoFA. These inconsistencies are an embarrassment to your organisation and further demonstrate the unprofessionalism and amateurism that appears to underpin your operations.

It is not my responsibility to educate Britannia Parking on basic legal principles or the requirements of compliance. However, I will no longer waste my time engaging with what is clearly the work of intellectually malnourished amateurs.

You now have three options:

1. Cancel the PCN.

2. Issue a POPLA code so that this matter can be independently adjudicated.

3. Refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).

Should you fail to take one of these actions, I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association (BPA) and any other relevant authorities to review your conduct and practices.

This is your final opportunity to resolve this matter appropriately.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
On behalf of [Company}
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #28 on: »
Edit: clearly crossed with b789's post

Personally, I'd ignore, let the 14 days elapse, and wait for them to either cancel the charge or issue you a POPLA code.

I would also be minded to immediately lodge a complaint with the British Parking Association, attaching a copy of the 2 letters sent on the same day, pointing out that Britannia are saying that the notice is not issued using the provisions of PoFA, then in another letter claiming that you are being notified of keeper liability under Schedule 4 of PoFA. We can help you draft something (although I don't have much time immediately).

If you must reply to Britannia, I'd keep it short and sweet:

Dear Sirs,

We are surprised to receive two letters, issued on the same day, which directly contradict one another. The first is a near-verbatim duplicate of your previous correspondence, confirming that the parking charge is not PoFA compliant, whilst the second letter bizarrely claims that Britannia have the right to recover the charge from us as the registered keeper, under PoFA. Both statements cannot be true.

As you have clearly failed to properly read or address our previous comments, I refer you to our previous letter of [DATE]. Our position remains unchanged: cancel the charge or issue a POPLA code.

Yours...
Logged
Re: Britannia Parking Charge Notice
« Reply #29 on: »
Please see reply from my last letter ; I will await a call or further letter thank you

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »
  3. Britannia Parking Charge Notice