3. Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted  (Read 658 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

weasel73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« on: June 14, 2024, 06:08:28 pm »
Hi,

On 26th April the driver parked in the Waitrose car park, ran some errands in town, did some shopping in Waitrose and left. The driver didn't notice the signage.

On 16th May the below PCN was received by the RK:




The RK then appealed on the Britannia site with the following:

"Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ______) for vehicle registration mark _______, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,"

The RK then submitted an appeal 19th May on the Britannia website, being careful not to tick any boxes that might identify the driver.

The RK received an appeal-reply dated 11th June (below) which is again asking for the RK to provide details of the driver.




What should the RK do next?
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4208
  • Karma: +187/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2024, 06:37:00 pm »
Hilarious! "implied contract with the driver rules"  ;D

Ignore them and wait for the rejection and your POPLA code. They are just hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will give them the drivers identity on a plate.

Personally, I would respond with a sarcastic letter pointing out their intellectual deficiencies if they think that they can abuse the legal process with their garbage. However, that is optional and not necessary if you are not as outraged as I am by their incompetence.

Quote
As the registered keeper I have already given you my appeal. Your underhand trick to try and get me to reveal the identity of the driver because you have not provided an NtK that complies with the requirements of PoFA is embarrassing (in the legal sense). As the keeper, I am not obliged to provide you with the drivers identity and I will not be doing so.

Perhaps it is time for whoever advises you on legal matters relating to PCNs, to retire or go for some serious re-education in the law as it relates to keeper liability. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.

Please stop wasting my time and yours and go ahead and either cancel the PCN now or reject my appeal and provide me with a POPLA code where you will either waste your money on an assessment or auto withdraw. No need to wait 14 days.

Whether you send a snottogram reply or not, just wait for the rejection and the POPLA code where this will win as it is a clear cut case of non-PoFA and therefore the keeper cannot be liable

There are plenty of precedents to point out to POPLA why the keeper has no legal obligation to reveal the drivers identity, including from lead assessors at POPLA themselves.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2024, 06:49:51 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

weasel73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2024, 06:51:55 pm »
Thank you for your reply b789, that is helpful. I'll sit tight and update once I have a response from Britannia.
Logged

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2835
  • Karma: +85/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2024, 09:34:13 pm »
Quote from: weasel73 on June 14, 2024, 06:51:55 pm
I'll sit tight and update once I have a response from Britannia.
If they don't respond within the time required by the BPA's Code of Practice, chase them.
Logged

weasel73

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2024, 07:27:52 pm »
The RK has now received the following from Britannia. What should their next move be?

[/img]
[/img]
« Last Edit: July 31, 2024, 07:47:02 pm by DWMB2 »
Logged

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4208
  • Karma: +187/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2024, 08:48:51 pm »
You have 33 days from the date of the rejection to your appeal to submit your POPLA appeal, not 28 although there is no advantage to delaying it.

You appeal on the following points:

1. The PCN is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA to hold the keeper liable.
2. The operator has not shown that the person they are pursuing is the driver.
3. Cr@p signs
4. No landowner authority to issue PCNs
5. Breaches of the BPA Code of Practice.

You throw the proverbial kitchen sink at them. You only need to win on one point. They have to successfully rebut them all.

The main one is the non-PoFA NtK means that only the driver is liable. They do not know the identity of the driver and you are under no legal obligation to identify the driver and decline to do so.

The burden of proof is on the operator to prove that the keeper was also the driver. They are not allowed to infer or assumed anything. They most certainly cannot use their pathetic argument "implied contract with the driver rules". There is now much persuasive legal precedent to confirm that no such “contract”:exists.

That will be the winning point. Show us a draft of what you intend to send.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Britannia Parking PCN - Parked Longer Than Maximum Time Permitted - Waitrose Berkhamsted