Appeal to Britannia rejected, 09/01/2026 unfortunately, family issues prevented me posting earlier. Here is my appeal to POPLA, before it is sent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grounds to appeal
POPLA APPEAL – Britannia Parking
PCN number: A7264301
Vehicle registration: XXXX XXX
Date of event: 07/12/2025
Location: Preston - Fleece Inn, 39 Liverpool road, PR1 9XD
Date of appeal to Britannia Parking rejection: 09/01/2026
Date of appeal to POPLA: 31/01/2026
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as keeper only. The driver will not be identified.
No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4.
Britannia Parking is attempting to hold the registered keeper liable. That is only possible if, and only if, the Notice to Keeper fully complies with all mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). There is no concept of “partial” or “substantial” compliance. If the statutory conditions are not met, keeper liability does not arise and liability (if any) remains only with the unknown driver.
1. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to: (i) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, and (ii) invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The wording on this Notice does not “invite the keeper to pay” the unpaid parking charges. Instead it tells the keeper that if they were not the driver they should provide the driver’s full name and address and pass the notice to the driver, and it threatens that if the keeper does not provide the driver’s details the operator may pursue the keeper. That is a request to identify the driver (and a threat), not the statutory invitation to the keeper to pay.
Parliament deliberately used the phrase “invite the keeper to pay” in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). A notice that omits that mandatory invitation and replaces it with a demand for driver details is not compliant with PoFA. As a result, Britannia Parking cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
PoFA paragragh 9(2)(e) specifies that the NtK must present the two legs of 9(2)(e)(i)and(ii) as a specific 'legal choices' separated by the word 'or' - meaning that it should read as a complete sentence which offers the keeper a choice - this NtK contains no such wording.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as follows:
"At the current time, Britannia Parking (the creditor) does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore invited to pay the unpaid parking charges,
Or
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 this notice onto the driver."
No such paragraph exist in the NtK. On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground.
2. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA paragraph 4(4).
PoFA Paragraph 4(1) states that the creditor's right to recover unpaid parking charges from the Keeper:
"may only be exercised after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given."
This is because any liability for parking charges lies strictly with the driver. Only the driver could have been deemed to enter a contract with Britannia Parking, at the time of parking, and if the keeper was not the driver, then no contact could have been agreed and no liability could exists.
The wording on the NtK contradicts this. It States:
" You have 28 days to pay, appeal or transfer liability from the date of this notice"
As the keeper, I have no liabilty, but the driver may have. According to PoFA paragraph 4(4), liability could transfer from the driver to the keeper, but only after 28 days from the date of the NtK, and the NtK being compliant with all the condidtions of PoFA schedule 4. Britannia Parkings insistance that I am liable, and could therefore "transfer liability" is in direct contradiction to PoFA Paaragraph 4(4).
And from the rejected appeal:
"Therefore, we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw *your*
attention to the terms and condition of the parking contract that is on offer. *By leaving your* vehicle in
the car park without a validation *you* have broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe
the Parking Charge to be valid and correctly issued."
Britannia Parking are once again, infering that I am liable, as they did with the NtK. This is contrary to the PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). They must state that they do not know the name of the driver, and should have acknowldged this was not correct in the original NtK. They do not appear to have engaged with my reasons for appealing, leading me to assume that this appeal rejection is simply cut and paste, with no desire to actually engage with the appeal.
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground.
3. This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant, it fails PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a).
Paragraph 9(2)(a) states the NtK must:
"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;"
No evidence of the required period of parking – entry and exit times do not constitute parking times, and Parliament used the word “parking” deliberately
Even if POPLA were to consider the allegation on its merits (which is not necessary given the absence of keeper liability), the charge is not proven because Brtiannia Parking has not evidenced any “period of parking”.
PoFA uses the term “period of parking”. Parliament did not use “time on site”, “period on site”, “length of stay”, or similar. This distinction matters. A vehicle can enter and leave a site for a period of time without being parked for that entire period.
Britannia Parking is put to strict proof of the actual period of parking and evidence supporting it. If the operator’s evidence is merely ANPR entry/exit times, then the statutory concept of a “period of parking” has not been evidenced and the allegation is not made out. POPLA cannot substitute “time on site” for “period of parking” because Parliament did not.
Actually, the NtK does not even include timestamps on the ANPR images, but a panel that provides claimed time and date information. The only data from the image that is emphasised, is the Reg Plate, suggesting that no time stamp is available, therefore no "period of parking" can be reliably confirmed.The Britannia Parking NtK merely shows two images of a car, with the number plate emphasised, corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. The Notice to Keeper states:
“Entry: 07/12/2025 at 13:28:44
Exit: 07/12/2025 at 15:36:38”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Britannia Parking's own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.
Further, the entry and exit points of the carpark also provide access to another, uncontrolled parking space, at the same location:
InKarma Tattoo Studio, 27 Liverpool Road, Penwortham, PR1 9XD.
This provides for 3 spaces, and is delimited from the Fleece parking by BP signs, as per their website:
"Parking: Parking is available at the front of the property for up to 3 cars or for up to an hour on the Fleece car park." The images show the access from the Fleece and the demakation of the carpark and area [add images to show this]
Again, the NtK does not include evidence to confirm that the Driver parked in the controlled space, and not the InKarma car park
Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements
of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
Britannia Parking have not provided records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.
4. ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven
Britannia Parking relies on ANPR. The operator must prove that the ANPR system is accurate, properly maintained, correctly synchronised, and that the images and timestamps are reliable.
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of:
a) maintenance, calibration and audit records for the ANPR system for the period around the material date
b) evidence that the system clock was accurate and synchronised
c) the full ANPR log for this vehicle on the material date to rule out missing reads or double-dip errors
d) evidence of appropriate manual checks before issuing the charge
As can be seen from the NtK images provided, there are not time stamps on the ANPR images, but times and dates have been claimed separately. If Britannia Parking cannot provide strict proof of reliability and integrity, the allegation is not proven and the charge must be cancelled
On this basis, POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground.
4. No proof of landowner authority – Britannia Parking must evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f)
Euro Car Parks has not produced definitive proof that it has authority from the landowner (or a party with sufficient interest in the land) to operate at this site, issue parking charges, and pursue them.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires written authorisation and specifies what that authorisation must evidence. Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof by producing evidence that satisfies all requirements of PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f), including:
a) the identity of the landowner or the party with sufficient interest in the land
b) the exact land to which the authorisation applies, with clearly defined boundaries
c) the start date, end date and duration of the authorisation and confirmation it was in force on the material date
d) the scope of the operator’s authority and what enforcement activity is permitted
e) the operator’s authority to issue charges and pursue them in its own name
f) any conditions, exemptions, or restrictions governing enforcement
A generic witness statement, summary letter, or heavily redacted agreement does not provide definitive proof of authority. Unless Britannia Parking produces evidence addressing all of PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f), POPLA must find that landowner authority is not proven and the charge must be cancelled.
5. Evidence is provided, by witness statement, that the driver was using the Fleece Pub, as a patron, on the day in question. This confirms that the driver would have been allowed to park in the Fleece car park, if indeed they did do and did not park at InKarma Tatto car park, and may have failed to fully enter the vehicle reg plate correctly, in the terminal provided. POPLA's own guidance (Scenario 2), on their website, suggests this to be deemed an major keying error. Although this evidence was not available for the original appeal to Britannia Parking, another driver who was also issued with a NtK from Britannia Parking, used such evidence (of a purchase) and had the PCN cancelled. In light of this evidenece, I would request that POPLA cancel the charge, to bring parity with other users of the car park who may have demonstrate the same error
Conclusion
Britannia Parking cannot transfer liability to the keeper because the Notice to Keeper fails PoFA, including a clear failure to comply with
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no statutory invitation for the keeper to pay);
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) (no proven a “period of parking”, relying instead on claimed timestamps)
further, no liability may exist in respect of
PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f) (failed to provide definitive proof of landowner authority)
Failed to prove ANPR reliability.
Have not followed PPSCoP Annex F(3)(g).
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs Britannia Parking to cancel the parking charge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any comments, suggestions, corrections etc. would be gratefully received. I have to sumbit before Friday 6th Feb
Cheers
