Author Topic: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham (Read 1832 times)

forrestam123 · « **on:** June 29, 2024, 08:03:32 pm »

Dear all,

The Driver received this PCN from Britannia Parking on 18/06/24, after the Registered Keeper transferred the liability of the PCN to them on 28/05/24.

The Driver entered the car park at 0918. The Driver then attempted to purchase a ticket from one of the ticket machines. However, after minutes of trying, and failing, because the machine was seemingly not working, the Driver tried another machine. The Driver was again unsuccessful after trying for minutes. The Driver noticed a third ticket machine which had an "out of order" sign on it, which they did not try.

During the many minutes of trying and failing to purchase a ticket, the Driver's young child ended up requiring some attention. The Driver then spent a few minutes sorting our their child in the car. Following this, the Driver then tried another avenue to purchase a ticket - calling the number displayed in the car park. This call went through at 0943 and lasted for nearly 7 minutes. The driver successfully purchased a ticket at 0949. The ticket was for 2 hours.

The Driver left the car park at 1144, which they felt was appropriate, given they had not been able to purchase a ticket until 0949, and therefore were within the 2 hours. However, the attached PCN was issued and the Driver would appreciate help in appealing the PCN.

What would your advice be to the Driver?

Many thanks.

https://imgur.com/a/EIxC3s0

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2024, 12:22:22 am »

What you have shown us is a Notice to Hirer (NtH). Are you saying that the keeper, the lease/hire company, transferred their liability to you, the hirer/lessee? How on earth do the lease company know that the hirer/lessee was the driver? Please stop referring to yourself or any one as the driver.

Hopefully you haven't appealed yet. Under no circumstances should the hirer/lessee identify the driver. As far as Britannia are concerned, they have sent the NtH to the known hirer. They have no idea who was driving. The driver is unknown.

The unknown driver is always liable for any alleged breach of terms in a private car park. The only way that Britannia can transfer that liability from the unknown driver to the known Hirer, is if they fully comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Form many years experience, we know that 99.9999% of PCNs issued to vehicles that are leased/hired, will fail to fully comply with PoFA. By failing fully comply with PoFA, only the unknown driver can be liable. As the driver is unknown (hopefully the Hirer didn't tell Britannia, inadvertently or otherwise) Britannia have no hope of collecting on their speculative invoice.

They are not allowed to infer or assume that the Hirer was also the driver and the known Hirer is under no legal obligation to identify the unknown driver. An unregulated private parking company has no powers to demand anything about the unknown drivers identity. All they can do is request that the known Hirer identifies the unknown driver because they hope that the Hirer is low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

forrestam123 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2024, 06:55:35 am »

Thanks for your reply. The PCN was issued to the person driving the car, who is a named driver of the car. The car is privately owned and the liability was transferred from the registered keeper. The car is not hired or leased.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2024, 11:05:06 am »

OP, pl accept that this matter is procedural, so pl stick with procedure.

The registered keeper(RK) received a Notice to Keeper. This should be posted.

They named the driver, yes?

The person named has received a notice in their own name and this is what you posted?

So, what other information came with the notice?

Amend your last post pl. The Notice to Hirer was addressed to the person who, presumably, was identified by the keeper in their response to the Notice to Keeper.

We need to see that Notice to Keeper, the keeper's response and the creditor's reply.

b789 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 30, 2024, 01:44:02 pm »

Whatever happened, whether a leased/hired vehicle or privately owned, the original PCN was “issued” in one of two ways. Either as a Notice to Driver (NtD) which is the name for a windscreen “ticket” or as a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK).

In either case Britannia have no idea who the driver of the vehicle is. Anyone with the owners permission can drive any vehicle as long as they have third party insurance cover. My own insurance gives me third party liability cover to drive any other vehicle with the owners permission.

So, unless the NtK was fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA, there would have been no way that Britannia could have held anyone but the unknown driver liable for the charge. This is why the known keeper should never identify who the unknown (to Britannia) driver is.

In this case, if the known keeper has identified the unknown driver to Britannia, they have thrown away any protection they had to get this PCN cancelled at the first hurdle. Now, the driver is known and liable for the charge.

In the case of an NtD, as Britannia are a BPA member, it is advised that the (at this stage) unknown keeper should wait until day 26 after the issue of the NtD and then appeal as keeper. This then forces the PPC to respond to the appeal, often with a query as to the drivers identity. The point is that they will often overlook issuing an NtK and simply reject the appeal with a POPLA code. A POPLA appeal by the keeper where no NtK has been served is a guaranteed win.

So, in order to try and advise or assist you with your PCN, please clarify as requested by @H C Andersen has requested and show us the original NtK that the keeper received and any subsequent notice the driver has received in their own name. Do not redact any dates.

forrestam123 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 30, 2024, 03:31:03 pm »

Thanks for both of your message.

Please see the notice to keeper here, received 25/05/24: https://imgur.com/a/hoEe07f

The keeper then named the driver by filling the online transfer of liability form at britpark.com on 28/05/24.

The keeper received this email, also on 28/05/24, in response:

Thank you for your transfer of liability. We can confirm we have received this regarding ticket number [redacted].

Should we be unable to process your transfer of liability, we will be in touch within 14 days.

The notice to hirer (in original post) was then addressed to and received by the person identified by the keeper as the driver.

Your expert input is much appreciated!

b789 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 30, 2024, 04:31:44 pm »

Evidence of the intellectual malnourishment that pervades at the unregulated private parking companies. What they have sent is a Notice to Hirer (NtH) which does not transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Hirer. For an NtH to be PoFA compliant it would have to include copies of hire documents from the lease company. They have sent the wrong notice (invoice).

Whilst the drivers identity may have been revealed, they have not sent an invoice to the driver.

In their acknowledgment of the transfer of liability they should have acknowledged that the transfer of liability for the parking charge has been transferred from the Keeper to the Driver. They have not stated to whom they have transferred liability. A hirer and a driver are two separate legal entities.

Britannia should have sent an NtD. By sending an NtH they have misapplied the procedures under PoFA.

What Britannia should do (but don’t tell them) is acknowledge the error and rescind the Notice to Hirer. Next, they should issue a correct Notice to Driver (NtD) to the person identified by the registered keeper as the driver. This notice should comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012, including the information it must contain and the timeline for issuance.

The driver or registered keeper can challenge the notice on the grounds that the incorrect procedure was followed. They should document that the registered keeper provided the driver's details and that an NtD, not an NtH, should have been issued. There should be no rush to do this,

If Britannia fails to correct the notice type and reissue it properly within the required timeframe, neither the registered keeper nor the identified driver may be held liable for the parking charge. This is what is going to win this for you at POPLA.

By not issuing the correct notice, Britannia has not adhered to the legal framework set out by PoFA 2012, therefore invalidating their claim for the parking charge. The registered keeper and the driver have the right to contest the charge based on this procedural error.

b789 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 30, 2024, 05:21:16 pm »

To determine if any deadlines have been missed or cannot be achieved based on the timeline provided, we need to review the requirements and deadlines set by PoFA for issuing various notices and transferring liability. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Alleged Contravention Date: 14th May 2024
2. Notice to Keeper (NtK) Issued: 21st May 2024
3. Keeper Transfers Liability to Driver: 28th May 2024
4. Notice to Hirer (NtH) Issued: 18th June 2024
5. Current Date: 30th June 2024

Review of Deadlines and Requirements

Notice to Keeper (NtK)

- Requirement: The NtK must be issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention if Britannia intends to hold the keeper liable under PoFA.

- Compliance: The NtK was issued on 21st May 2024, which is within 7 days of the alleged contravention date (14th May 2024), so this is compliant.

Transfer of Liability by Keeper

- Requirement: The keeper can transfer liability by providing the driver’s details. There is no strict deadline under PoFA for the keeper to do this, but it should be done promptly to ensure Britannia can follow up correctly.

- Compliance: The keeper transferred liability on 28th May 2024, which is 7 days after receiving the NtK. This is prompt and compliant.

Issuing the Correct Notice to Driver (NtD)

- Requirement: Upon receiving the driver’s details from the keeper, Britannia should issue a Notice to Driver (NtD) within 14 days to hold the driver liable.

- Compliance Issue: Instead of issuing an NtD, Britannia issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) on 18th June 2024. This is 21 days after the liability was transferred by the keeper on 28th May 2024. This is both the wrong type of notice and issued beyond the 14-day deadline for issuing an NtD.

Current Situation

- NtH Issued on 18th June 2024: Given to the "Hirer" with 21 days to appeal. Since the NtH is not the correct notice and was issued beyond the required timeframe for an NtD, this notice is procedurally incorrect.

Deadlines and Corrective Actions

1. Missed Deadlines:

- The deadline for issuing a Notice to Driver (NtD) was 14 days after 28th May 2024, i.e., by 11th June 2024. This has been missed.

- Issuing an NtH instead of an NtD does not meet the requirements under PoFA 2012.

2. Corrective Actions:

- Britania cannot now retroactively issue an NtD within the correct timeframe.

- Britannia's procedural error means they have not complied with PoFA 2012 requirements, thereby invalidating their claim to hold either the keeper or the driver liable.

Next Steps

- Appeal the Charge: The driver (or the person incorrectly identified as the "Hirer") should appeal the charge based on the incorrect notice type and missed deadlines. They can highlight that Britannia failed to follow the correct legal procedures under PoFA 2012.

In summary, Britannia has missed the deadline to issue a Notice to Driver (NtD) and has issued an incorrect notice (NtH). This procedural error means they cannot hold the driver liable under PoFA 2012.

The person named in the NtH (presumably the driver) should appeal the PCN with the following:

Re: Parking Charge Notice [Reference Number]

I am writing to formally appeal the parking charge notice referenced above.

The registered keeper of the vehicle [Vehicle Registration Number] provided my details as the driver to transfer liability for the parking charge. However, instead of issuing the required Notice to Driver (NtD) you issued a Notice to Hirer (NtH) on 18th June 2024. This notice is procedurally incorrect as it does not apply to a situation where the keeper has identified the driver and it was issued beyond the legally permitted timeframe.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a Notice to Driver must be issued in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule 4. The NtH issued does not meet these requirements and was issued 21 days after the transfer of liability, which is an unreasonable delay. As a result, the parking charge cannot be enforced against me as the driver.

I suggest that this parking charge be cancelled immediately. Should you fail to do so, please reject this appeal and issue me with a POPLA code where I will present evidence of your procedural non-compliance.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #8 on:** June 30, 2024, 05:29:10 pm »

I respectfully disagree

Sorry b789, there is no prescribed form, notice or whatever to send to the driver.

It is certainly not a Notice to Driver which is a PoFA doc but for the moment PoFA has nothing to do with matters because they should be pursuing the driver. That the numpties still don't get this should be a surprise, but it's not.

“notice to driver” means a notice given in accordance with paragraph 7;

As far as is relevant...

7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

7(4)The notice must be given—

(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates,

So OP, they have sent you a form, IMO you have every right to respond to the same as if it was a Notice to Hirer(even though we've explained that it isn't).

The response is simple:
Thank you for your Parking Charge Notice titled Notice to Hirer.

As you know, when served a Notice to Hirer must be accompanied by four prescribed documents as follows:
A copy of the original Notice to Keeper;

A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

A copy of the hire agreement; and

A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

As you know, none of the above was supplied and therefore you are unable to invoke the provisions of para. 14(1) of Schedule 4 to PoFA.

I cannot help you further in this matter.

But where would this leave the registered keeper?

We'll have to wait and see what the creditor chooses to do.

b789 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 30, 2024, 05:52:27 pm »

Whatever happens, the correct procedures have not been followed. Whilst an NtD as referred to in para 7 of PoFA is not applicable, a Notice to Driver (PCN) should still have been issued. It has not.

Britannia should either cancel the PCN or reject the appeal and issue a POPLA code. A POPLA assessor or even the tea-boy if they're on duty that day, can see that there is such an obvious procedural error that the PCN cannot have been issued correctly.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #10 on:** June 30, 2024, 06:47:40 pm »

There is no such thing as a Notice to Driver after the event.

PoFA has nothing to do with how a creditor pursues a driver. So, a notice to driver(lower case, that they owe money) could take any legal form.

OP, this case is unusual in that the driver is rarely outed. So in parallel to the main strand, why have they been outed? Is this a business relationship as regards the RK and driver or what?

b789 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 30, 2024, 07:11:41 pm »

The BPA CoP requires the operator to issue a PCN to the driver. A PCN has not been issued. If a PCN had been issued, as it is not relying on PoFA, it must not have any mention of PoFA in it.

A PCN in the form of an NtH was issued. An NtH is a PCN. The NtH refers to PoFA, therefore it is in breach of the BPA CoP.

The driver needs to appeal in order to get Britannia to either cancel the PCN or issue a POPLA code. It will be at POPLA where they will decide whether the PCN was issued correctly.

The OP is looking for advice on what to do next. Whilst we all agree that "outing" their driver is never advised, it was done, for whatever grudge the keeper had against the driver and they are where they are now.

POPLA will only consider procedural failures by the operator. Mitigation and other irrelevant background such as children requiring attention has no relevance to anything that POPLA will consider. Their only consideration is whether the PCN has been issued correctly. It hasn't.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #12 on:** June 30, 2024, 07:31:08 pm »

My draft is based wholly in law.

The recipient has received a document referred to as a Notice to Hirer which includes repeated references to PoFA. The creditor's burden is to comply with PoFA.

They haven't, and all the recipient needs to do is respond accordingly.

They have researched their defences and should submit one based wholly on what they have received i.e. PoFA and the notice.

As regards the CoP, there is no requirement to issue a Notice to Driver, the applicable Appendix states that:

Keeper is invited to disclose driver details;
Pursue driver.

As I posted, any permissible method would be acceptable.

b789 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 30, 2024, 07:50:19 pm »

FYI, BPA CoP 22.11

It is the driver’s responsibility to pay the parking charge notice. If you receive information from the keeper which identifies the driver, and the driver is someone else, you must serve the parking charge notice by post on the driver.

The NtH is, in effect, a PCN.

BPA CoP 22.10

Your letter to the keeper should point out the details of the unauthorised parking event and ask for payment or request details of the driver. If you are not making use of the keeper liability provisions of POFA or you are unable to achieve the deadlines specified therein, your letter must not reference POFA or state that the keeper is liable.

If the parking charge notice is not being issued under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it must not reference this legislation.

The NtH was sent as a PCN to the driver. As the NtH is the PCN sent to the driver, it has breached the BPA CoP because it references PoFA.

forrestam123 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 30, 2024, 09:16:24 pm »

b789 and H C Anderson - thanks so much for your kind input - your passion and expertise are both thoroughly appreciated!

The driver is certain to appeal to this NtH - no question. However, they are certainly uncertain as to which draft letter would have the higher chance of success as they honestly have zero knowledge relating to PCNs and are humbly in the hands of the FTLA community! The driver would appreciate any further opinions as to which of the suggested directions to take.

Thanks again.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham (Read 1832 times)

forrestam123

Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

forrestam123

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

H C Andersen

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

forrestam123

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

H C Andersen

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

H C Andersen

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

H C Andersen

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

b789

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham

forrestam123

Re: Britannia Parking PCN - St Johns Road Car Park, Birmingham