Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All,

I am the registered keeper.

I received a parking charge notice to keeper from Britannia parking for parking at Birmingham Grand Central Hill Street, B5 4DQ. This the car park attached to the Birmingham grand central station.
Entry time & Date: 19/09/2025 at 21:25:01
Exit time & date: 19/09/2025 21:53:26
Around 28 mins
Notice date: 24th September 2025
Contravention date: 19/09/2025
Paid by date: 24/10/2025


The registered Keeper has appealed with the below on 5th Oct 2025:
"I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Britannia has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Britannia have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."

The registered keeper received this response from Britannia on 28th October 2025:
"£60 to reach us by 13/11/2025 or £100 to reach us by 27/11/2025Thank you for your appeal received on 05/10/2025 regarding the above Parking Charge. We have considered your appeal and comments you have made; in conjunction with any evidence you have provided and the photographs we have on record. 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. The Parking Charge was issued to your vehicle because a valid ticket was not purchased. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they have read and understood the terms and conditions for using the car park. Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Code of Practice at all times. We meet all signage requirements under the BPA's Code of Practice regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions. The parking contract clearly states, “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within the Property, you enter into a Contract with the Britannia Parking and agree to comply with the Parking Contract”. Therefore, we consider there to be sufficient, clearly visible signage in the car park to draw your attention to the terms and conditions of the parking contract that is on offer. British Parking Association Code of Practice - Consideration and Grace Periods The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type. The reference to a consideration period shall not apply where a parking event takes place. (A ticket is purchased).Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for Britannia Parking to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. We give motorists a 10 minute consideration period on arrival before entering into the ‘parking contract’. If the driver has not purchased a ticket within this 10 minute period, a Parking Charge will be issued. By leaving your vehicle in the car park without a valid ticket you have broken the terms and conditions and therefore we believe the Parking Charge to be valid and correctly issued. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. You now have a number of options from which to choose:-1 Pay the Parking Charge at the amount stated above. If any discount has been offered you will begiven a further 14 days to pay the discounted rate. Please note that after this time the discounted rate will no longer apply.2 If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you. 3 Make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals service. Please note that if you wish to appeal to POPLA, you will lose the right to pay the Parking Charge at the discounted rate, and should POPLA's decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount. If you opt to pay the Parking Charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. You must submit an appeal to POPLA within 28 days from the date of this outcome letter, by submitting an online case at www.popla.co.uk Your POPLA verification code is 6013015026. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services (www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above."

Any advice on next steps would be much appreciated.

Images:
https://ibb.co/XrWx4ws7
https://ibb.co/D2ZmnqY
https://ibb.co/990T5VPY
https://ibb.co/jZqzHw7S
https://ibb.co/kVy1kkCQ

Google location:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Britannia,+Birmingham+Grand+Central+Car+Park/@52.4780006,-1.9021777,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x4870bc898539995f:0x24077184e9cc67e8!8m2!3d52.4779974!4d-1.8996028!16s%2Fg%2F12qgvld0f?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEwNC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Unfortunately I do not have images of the car park and signage as the car park is a significant distance from me.
Many thanks in advance.

Very close to New Street station - relevant land?

Alas - I didn't have chance to investigate last night, just the location made me wonder!

Make sure you show us a draft of the full POPLA appeal before submitting anything.

You need to lead the POPLA assessor through the reasons why PoFA 2012 is not complied with. Just saying that it isn’t won’t be good enough.

Stop being lazy and put some effort into this.

This is how you should expand on those points:

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:

1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

This NtK contains no “period of parking.” It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “failed to make a valid payment” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).

2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”

The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please inform us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice on to them.”

This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.

3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))
PoFA requires the warning to state that the keeper will become liable if “after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” the charge remains unpaid and the operator does not know the driver’s identity.

The NtK instead says liability will arise “after 28 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued).”

This re-wording changes the statutory time calculation. The Act specifies that the 28-day period begins the day after the notice is given, not “from the date issued.” The operator’s version shortens the period by at least two days, thereby failing to reproduce the mandatory wording prescribed by Parliament. This departure is not a minor error: Schedule 4 imposes strict conditions that must be met exactly before keeper liability can be invoked.

4. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”

The NtK merely asserts that the land is “managed by Britannia Parking (the creditor).” It omits the full legal entity name, company number and registered address. “Britannia Parking” is a trading style used by several related companies, including Britannia Parking Group Limited and Britannia Parking Services Limited. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).

5. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.” The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.

Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a), 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Britannia Parking cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

You should also put them to strict proof of a valid landowner contract:

I require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.

In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:

• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.

These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.