-
Received this today. I used to be quite familiar with the procedures to deal with these, but its been a long while since I received one.
The driver visited a pub which apparently had a 3 hour time limit, and the customer was supposed to register to stay longer. The driver was not aware of this and didn't see any signs, although they could well be there. entry and exit to the car park was at night, in a badly lit car park. The photos are not clear to show the vehicle and/or driver. The alleged overstay was for 17 minutes. The date of the overstay was 07/02 and the letter arrived 25/02. Is there a 14 day rule that applies here?
Any advice would be appreciated as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Please see attached PDF of the notice
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Have you tried Plan A yet? Go to the pub and ask the management why, as a patron of their pub you have received a speculative invoice for £100 from an ex-clamper, unregulated private parking company. As the pub most likely contracted Britannia to "manage" their parking, they can also get them to cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
Whatever you do, you are asking them as the Keeper of the vehicle. No one but you knows who the driver was. You simply refer to the driver in the third person ("the driver did this or that").
The Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable. It also has some sirups breaches of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) which can also be relied on at POPLA if necessary.
You can also send them a formal complaint about their PPSCoP breaches and put them to strict proof that they actually posted the notice within the statutory time to be given in accordance with the PoFA timeframe. They are required to be able to provide proof of the actual date the notice entered the postal system, not just the date they send it by hybrid mail to their mail consolidator. They won't have this and will make up all sorts of pathetic excuses but it does make their life a tiny bit more miserable and gives us all some Schadenfreude knowing that "they don't like it up 'em!" -
-
Hi - Thanks for the advice. I've attempted plan A and contacted the pub but I don't seem to have got very far with that. The manager seems to be ignoring me. Appreciate any advice as to my next step. :-)
-
-
Got the first reminder through today, looks like I'm going to have to do something. Anyone have any further advice for me?
-
-
Appeal as the Keeper with the following:Quote
I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Your Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), meaning you cannot hold me liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient.
It also fails to meet all the mandatory requirements of the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). As you are fully aware, compliance with both PoFA and the PPSCoP is a condition of your KADOE contract with the DVLA, and your failure to adhere to these conditions not only renders this charge invalid but will be highlighted in a formal complaint to the DVLA for investigation.
Your NtK fails to meet the following statutory conditions in order to transfer liability to the keeper, including but not limited to:• PoFA 9(2)(e)(i): Fails to include the mandatory ‘invitation’ wording for the keeper to pay or name the driver.
• PoFA 9(2)(f): Incorrect payment deadline, failing to allow the full 28 days before further enforcement action.
• PoFA 9(2)(h): Fails to clearly identify the creditor to whom the charge is owed.
• PoFA 9(4): Serious doubt over whether the NtK was posted on the date of issue, as it was received significantly later than expected under the presumption of service.
Since PoFA liability is only enforceable if ALL mandatory conditions are met, and your notice fails multiple key requirements, you cannot lawfully hold me liable for this charge.
Your NtK also fails to meet the standards set out in the PPSCoP, including but not limited to:• Incorrect payment deadline, failing to allow the required 28-day period before enforcement action.
• Misuse of DVLA data by pursuing a charge where PoFA conditions have not been met.
• Failure to comply with the mandatory conditions of PoFA Schedule 4, which means keeper liability cannot be enforced.
• Failure to clearly and properly identify the legal entity acting as the creditor.
• Doubt over whether the NtK was actually posted on the stated issue date, raising concerns about misleading documentation.
As I fully expect this appeal will inevitably be rejected, regardless of its merit, as that is the standard practice of rogue/cowboy private parking operators, I do not intend to expand on these breaches in this initial appeal. However, if Britannia wish to waste their money funding a full POPLA appeal, where you are bound to fail, then be my guest. At that stage, I will expand on each and every failure in full, including why continuing to process the DVLA data when the NtK itself is non-compliant, Britannia is acting unlawfully.
Alternatively, you can do the sensible thing, save us both a complete waste of time and cancel this unenforceable PCN now. -
-
Quote
Misuse of DVLA data by pursuing a charge where PoFA conditions have not been met.
Perhaps "Misuse of DVLA data by falsely claiming keeper liability, when PoFA conditions have not been met"
They're entitled to use DVLA data to issue a parking charge - what they can't do is claim to be able to recover from the keeper when they haven't met the necessary conditions to do so. -
-
Thanks both for your replies. Unfortunately I didn't see your messages in time, so replied broadly on the same lines without the detail. I complained about the quality of the "photo evidence" and that the letter had arrived outside the specified time frame.
I got the reply below today - please see their attachment for the "proof of postage" I've replied with the information you gave above, and also stated that this "Unity 5" document does not qualify as proof of postage - this seems to be a third party cloud based app they use to process their letters. It doesn't prove it entered the royal mail system who delivered the letter.
Good Morning,
Thank you for your email.
Please be aware that you have been notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full.
You are advised that if, after 28 days from the date given, (which is presumed to be the second working day after the date Issued), the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and Britannia Parking do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our compliance with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.
Should we be provided with an incorrect address for service, we will pursue the registered keeper for any Parking Charge that remains unpaid. Therefore, after 28 days if you have not provided us with the driver’s name and address you will be liable to pay the Parking Charge, regardless of whether you were the driver at the time or not.
Please be aware that this site is an ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) controlled car park. It is not feasible to calibrate the ANPR system to recognise the driver.
Our cameras are designed to only capture the vehicle and the registration plates.
Due to GDPR, should the images capture motorist faces, we will black these out. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with photographic evidence of the driver at the time of the contravention.
It is the keeper’s responsibility to make sure that only authorised individuals are entitled to use their vehicle.
Please provide us full details including name and address of the driver at the time of the contravention otherwise, as registered keeper you may hold liable for the Parking Charge.
Please see attached requested postage certificate.
Please be informed that the Parking Charge has been issued and sent to you on 13/02/2025 the contravention had place on 07/02/2025, therefore Parking Charge has been issued and sent within 14 days.
Britannia Parking cannot be held responsible for postal correspondence once they have entered Royal Mails postal system.
Kind Regards,
Magdalena
Client Services Administrator
Britannia Parking, 7th Floor, County Gates House, 300 Poole Road, Poole, BH12 1AZ
Tel: 01202 555888
Web: www.britpark.com
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Would be useful to see the actual wording of your appeal.
-
-
Sorry, just been through my sent items and I don't seem to have the original appeal wording. I guess its not in email form, and I didn't save a copy... however I did get this initial reply to my appeal.
Thank you for your appeal. Please provide us proof of purchase at the pub (E.g receipt showing
food/drink was purchased or a bank statement) and we will review this with your appeal.
We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please email your additional evidence to parkingcharges@britpark.com referencing your Parking
Charge Number and Vehicle Registration or send it to our registered head office address in Poole
I assume here that they were trying to get me to admit to being the driver, since if I had a receipt it would prove I was there!
I replied as follows :-
Hi
Thanks for your message.
I am responding as the registered keeper of the vehicle. We are still at the stage of verifying the legality of your notice before we move on to identifying the driver.
Please provide the proof of postage I requested. You are obliged to have got this notice to me within 14 days which you failed to do.
Once we have addressed this plus other breaches of the standards you need to comply with, we can move on.
Unless you can provide proof of postage I don’t think we will get to the driver identification stage.
-
-
The things they’re asking for can never be proof of who the driver was, although I’m sure they’d like you to divulge this by accident. Surely a passenger can buy food or drink in a pub?
-
-
I think you may be overthinking this - which is certainly better than under-thinking it!
You may be right that they're trying to catch you out, but on the off chance they are willing to consider evidence that the driver had a right to be there, there's no harm in supplying it. Just be careful with your wording
i.e. "Further to your email XYZ, and referring to appeal XYZ, the driver has supplied me with the following receipt. I trust this will be enough for PCN to be cancelled"
--
As an aside, I note in your appeal and reply you are talking about "getting to the driver identification stage" - to be clear there is no such stage. You do not need to identify the driver. If there is no POFA compliance, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known keeper. If there were POFA compliance they could, but you will still likely appeal as the keeper, not shift liability of your own accord. -
-
In this particular car park it was a 3 hour "free" limit, and then you had to pay to go beyond that. So it's not really relevant if I had a ticket or not, the time was a few minutes over the 3 hours, so not sure what angle they were trying to take with this one.
Point taken about the stages, I guess by this, I meant that I was going to validate the ticket as the registered keeper before I went on to identify the driver... which of course I won't be doing :-)
I'm guessing from your profile name you're an amateur radio user?
De M0OOS
73 :-) -
-
You're right to be suspicious of their angle - but it's not completely unheard of for these sorts of things to be dropped.
If they can get into their tiny minds "this person was a genuine customer and only overstayed for a few minutes, therefore we'd have no hope in court" they may well drop it. -
-
Why are you trying to conduct this without following the advice and using all sorts of wording that indicates to them that you are a likely mug, ripe for picking off the gullible tree?
Simply respond with the following:QuoteSubject: Re: Appeal Rejection – Britannia’s Continued Non-Compliance
Dear Magdalena,
Thank you for your response, which demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of PoFA, the PPSCoP, and basic legal principles. You’ve managed to completely ignore every single failure of your own Notice to Keeper (NtK), instead parroting a legally baseless assumption that merely claiming PoFA compliance somehow makes it so.
Unfortunately for Britannia, PoFA is not a pick-and-mix buffet where you get to cherry-pick compliance. Either an NtK meets all mandatory conditions, or it doesn’t. And yours doesn’t. It’s like pregnancy—you either are, or you aren’t. There’s no such thing as being ‘a little bit PoFA compliant.’
Since you evidently failed to properly read my initial appeal properly, let me spell it out again:• Your NtK does not contain the mandatory PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) wording. The statute is clear... There can be no implied obligation. The invitation to the keeper must be included. Your omission alone is enough to invalidate keeper liability.
• Your payment deadline misrepresents PoFA 9(2)(f). The legally prescribed 28-day period starts from the day after the notice is given, not from the arbitrary internal deadline you’ve made up.
• You have failed to clearly identify the creditor, breaching PoFA 9(2)(h). Simply naming Britannia Parking somewhere in the notice does not meet this requirement.
• Your 'proof of posting' is worthless. A mail consolidator’s hybrid email receipt is not proof that the notice entered the postal system on the stated date. As per PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) Note 2, which very clearly states: "Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)" So, your consolidators receipt is not evidence of the date they put the notice into the postal system. Without this proof, the presumption of service cannot apply.
Now, onto the blatant misinformation in your response. Your claim that I am liable for the charge unless I name the driver is utter nonsense. Liability under PoFA does not arise simply because Britannia wants it to—it only arises if you have met all statutory conditions. Which, as demonstrated above, you have not.
Your pathetic attempt to intimidate me into disclosing the driver’s details is noted. It won’t work. I am under no legal obligation to assist Britannia in identifying the driver, and given your clear non-compliance with PoFA, there is no valid claim against me as the keeper.
You now have two choices:1. Cancel this unenforceable charge now, saving Britannia the embarrassment of having it formally discredited at POPLA.
2. Press ahead with a doomed POPLA appeal, where I will dismantle your case, highlighting every regulatory breach in excruciating detail.
Either way, this charge is dead in the water. But by all means, feel free to waste your company’s money. I’d almost feel bad for Britannia Parking—if they weren’t such a predatory, incompetent outfit.
Yours insincerely,
[Your Name] -
-
You too? I also got one from the Dolphin pub!
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/britannia-pcn-overstayed-dolphin-pub-botley/msg60714/#msg60714
I contacted the publican who didn't sound that interested seeing as we weren't customers at that time.
@b789 thanks for these templates, I'll borrow these to handle my PCN too. -
Agree x 1
View List
Love x 1
View List