Just use the following as your rebuttal which you can copy and paste into the POPLA response webform:
This is my rebuttal to Britannia Parking’s evidence.
Britannia has failed to properly respond to the main points raised in my appeal. Their evidence pack contains large amounts of generic text and irrelevant photographs, but it does not address the actual legal arguments that were presented.
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Britannia repeatedly claim that their notice is PoFA compliant, but they fail to address the specific breaches pointed out in the appeal. Merely repeating that a notice is compliant does not make it so. Just as someone cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant – they either are or they aren’t – a Parking Charge Notice cannot be partially or even mostly PoFA compliant. It either is or it isn’t. This is a binary issue, and in this case, the notice is not fully PoFA compliant.
The Notice to Keeper fails to include the statutory wording required under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. That paragraph states that the notice must invite the keeper to do one of two things: either pay the unpaid charge or notify the creditor of the name and current address of the driver. The use of the word “invite” is deliberate and important. It reflects the fact that there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver to a private company. The law does not permit any implied obligation. The notice must make this position explicitly clear.
Britannia’s NtK does not include any such invitation. Instead, it states that the driver is required to pay the charge in full and that the keeper should provide the driver’s details. This is not what PoFA requires. There is no statement that the keeper is invited to pay the charge. Nor is there any recognition that naming the driver is optional. The word “invite” does not appear anywhere in the relevant section of the notice.
This is not a minor issue. Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) is a mandatory condition. If the notice fails to meet this requirement, then keeper liability under PoFA cannot apply. Partial or assumed compliance is not good enough. The law requires the invitation to be clearly and expressly stated. Britannia has failed to include it, and they have failed to address this omission in their response. Their repeated assertion that the NtK is PoFA compliant does not make it so.
They have also misrepresented the 28-day statutory period under paragraph 9(2)(f). The notice says the keeper has 28 days “from the date given,” which they define as two working days after posting. However, the law requires that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice is deemed “given.” Britannia wrongly uses the “given” date as Day 1. This shortens the statutory response period by a full day and misleads the recipient.
The notice does not clearly identify the creditor as required by paragraph 9(2)(h). It simply refers to “Britannia Parking,” which is not a legal entity. There are at least four different companies in the Britannia group, including Britannia Parking Group Ltd, Britannia Parking Services Ltd, Britannia Parking Management Ltd, and Britannia Parking Ltd. Each is a separate legal entity. The notice does not name which one is the creditor, nor does it include a company number or registered address. The assessor cannot be expected to guess which company is claiming the charge. The notice must clearly identify the legal entity to whom the charge is owed.
There is no valid proof of posting. Britannia has submitted a printout from a third-party mail company showing the date the notice was generated and passed to them. That is not a proof of posting. There is no Royal Mail receipt or confirmation that the notice was actually posted. Furthermore, Britannia admits using “2–3 day delivery,” which is second class post. Second class mail does not trigger the two-working-day presumption of delivery under the Interpretation Act 1978. Without valid proof of posting by first class mail, they cannot rely on the 14-day service window under PoFA paragraph 9(4).
Britannia has not provided a single clear sign showing the 10-minute validation requirement in a prominent and legible way. Their evidence pack includes multiple photos, but most are taken from wide angles or are too blurry or distant to show any meaningful content. The key condition that supposedly forms the basis of the £100 charge – that the driver must validate their stay within 10 minutes – is not shown in any image as a clear and prominent term. That is a breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, and it means no contract could have been formed on those terms.
The contract with the landowner is so heavily redacted that it is not reliable. The termination clause is completely blacked out, meaning it is impossible to tell whether the contract was valid and in force on the date of the alleged contravention. POPLA requires operators to prove that they had authority at the relevant time. Britannia has not shown this.
The evidence pack contains many irrelevant images, including photos of walls, street furniture, plumbing fixtures and other background items that have no connection to the signage or the terms and conditions. These appear included just to bulk out the submission and confuse the issue. They do not support the operator’s case and should be ignored.
Most importantly, Britannia has not responded directly to the points made in the appeal. Instead, they have copied and pasted large amounts of standard text and made generic statements about their compliance. They have not rebutted the detailed PoFA breaches, nor have they proven that a contract was formed or that they had authority to issue the charge.
Conclusion: The Parking Charge Notice is not PoFA compliant. The signage is inadequate. The landowner contract is incomplete. The operator has not addressed the appeal arguments or provided the evidence required. This charge must be cancelled.
I finally got a decision on my appeal! Success!! Thank you to all that were involved and helped me, some really good advice on this forum. For interest, I'll post the assessor summary and comments below.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal which have been condensed for the purpose of my report: • The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) – there is no keeper liability. They say close analysis shows that the notice is not fully compliant and must be absolute for keeper liability to comply. They say the operator has failed to meet Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (e) (i) as there is no invitation for the keeper to pay, it does not meet (f) as there is no timeline. They say the wording of the PCN is incorrect and misleading as saying that £100 must be made within 28 days of the date issued is incorrect and there are two conflicting payment deadlines leading motorists to believe payment is required earlier than expected and legally required. They say 9 (2) (b) has not been met as the circumstances are not described. They say that 9 (2) (f) has not been met. They say the operator has failed to identify he creditor and Britania Parking is not a legal entity and does not appear on Companies House. Therefore, not meeting 9 (2) (f). They say 9 (4) has not been met as there has been no demonstration that the keeper was posted and this also does not meet the Private Parking Single Code of Practice in section 8.2 (e) note 2. • No valid contract formed – inadequate and unclear signage. They say the signs are not sufficient, displayed in prominent and visible locations, containing clear and legible wording or communicating the requirement to validate in 10 minutes. They say there must be a site map, photos of the signs from a driver’s perspective at the entry and kiosk and a sign containing the 10 minute requirement and the £100 charge. • They mention the Supreme Court Case heard between Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis 2015. They mention the 10 minute requirement being a core contractual condition and does not meet 7.2.3 of the code. They say the charge was not prominent and was unclear, failing to be distinguishable from the rest of the text. • The operator is put to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It must have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley – The Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and the contract covers the required period. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail. The appellant states the landowner document is so heavily redacted it is impossible to confirm whether the contract is valid, PoFA requirements have not been met, the signs do not contain the 10 minute requirement and the operator has not responded to their concerns.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove the PCN has been issued correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the vehicle parked without a valid payment. The appellant questions whether operator is properly authorised by the landowner and whether it holds a valid contract to enforce PCNs. They say the operator is put to strict proof of a valid contract with the landowner. It must have a current, valid contract with the landowner ‘Botley – The Dolphin’, confirms it can take action in its own name and the contract covers the required period. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of contract, however this evidence does not confirm that there is an agreement with the landowner as the name and address of the landowner is fully redacted. Whilst it confirms the address, in the absence of the landowner’s name and address, I cannot conclude that the operator had a valid contract with the owner of this land on the date of the event. It is within the operator’s gift to provide POPLA with evidence to fully rebut the appellant’s grounds raised and in this instance, I am not satisfied the copy of the contract does rebut their grounds. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the operator failed to provide a full copy of a compliant agreement with the landowner , I am not satisfied that the operator has issued this PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
Out of interest, what was the name of the assessor? Different assessors seem to take wildly different approaches to landowner authority and what they will and won't accept as evidence.
Seems you got a good one - well done!
Amy Smith was the moderator.
Winner x 2
View List