Author Topic: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket  (Read 122 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

IanO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hello,
The first 2 hours of parking at our local supermarket are free (no ticket required). The registered keeper received a PCN for unwittingly staying over this time (2 and a half hours).
Both people insured to drive the vehicle were abroad at the time the PCN was received (one on holiday, one due to their father’s death) and only saw this PCN upon our return this week. We have therefore missed the discount period.
My questions please
(1) are there grounds on which this PCN can be dismissed?
(2) if we’re bang to rights can/should we appeal to be allowed to paid the discounted amount given both were abroad? Flight receipts/death certificate etc available as proof
Front and back of PCN attached
https://ibb.co/8KZFLxJ
https://ibb.co/nnJsVZb

Thank you
« Last Edit: April 13, 2024, 07:27:52 pm by IanO »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2024, 11:19:29 am »
Easy one to beat. Britannia are not relying on PoFA 2012 to hold the keeper liable. Only the driver is liable.

They have no idea who the driver is. Do not identify the driver. You appeal only as the keeper with the following:

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

Nothing more than that is needed so don't try and embellish it.

IanO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2024, 03:41:08 pm »
thanks.
I've sent in the appeal but it does seem fairly compliant with POFA paragraph 9?
I just know they're going to reject this, so I'm trying to anticipate next steps. I think the gap is with Para 9(e) that says the NTK must state if the keeper was not the driver, then the keeper must notify the creditor of who the driver is.
The NTK doesn't spell that out.


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2024, 06:03:57 pm »
The NtK is not PoFA compliant at all. What makes you think it is compliant?

PoFA 9(e) {The Notice MUST} 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 of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Nowhere does it state that. Nowhere is there any invitation for the keeper to pay the charge. Nowhere does it state that if the keeper was not the driver they should notify the creditor of the name and address for service for the driver or to pass the notice to the driver.

The NtK mentions the "motorist". There is no such term in PoFA. The "driver is liable for any alleged breach of contract. They don't know who the driver is. They only know who the "keeper" is. The driver and the keeper are two separate entities. No inference can be made that the keeper must also be the driver.

PoFA 9(2)(b), (c}, (d)(i) and (ii), (e)(i), and (f)(i) and (ii)  are not complied with.

Additionally, they have breached the BPA ATA CoP 21.5 in that the images on the NtK must bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at the point the picture was taken. It does not matter if they are on the file images when you view them on their website. They must be unaltered and not cropped just so they fit on the NtK.

A recent POPLA appeal was successful on this point alone:


POPLA case 2413353469

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: ***** Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

  • The signage is inadequate
  • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not meet PoFA requirements.
  • The NTK does not accurately describe the circumstances so there is no keeper liability.
  • The operator has not shown that the individual it is chasing is the driver.
  • No landowner authority
  • Grace period- Non compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA).
  • No evidence of the period parked.
  • Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA.
  • The ANPR system is not reliable or accurate. The appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and they have commented on the operator’s case file.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:

The Images of the vehicle contained within the NTK are not compliant with the BPA. The appellant has stated in the comments that although the operator has provided full date stamped photographs in the case file, the images on the NTK are not compliant.

I acknowledge the appellant’s grounds of appeal and I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Section 21.5a states: "When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

I have reviewed the copy of the NTK provided by the operator and I am not satisfied that the images of the vehicle number plate on the NTK are compliant with Section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice.

These images are not date stamped and after seeing the full images in the case file they appear to have been digitally altered or cropped to fit on the NTK. This is especially apparent on the colour image on the NTK.

The image recorded of the vehicle entering the site is also not very clear I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.


So, the Assessor says the images in the NtK are "cropped to fit on the NTK" and not date stamped.

This was the POPLA appeal as submitted:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y410nf9lbh2x8q4l6byan/POPLA_ECP_redacted.docx?rlkey=xggasv1r1l58guloq8m6vd4dt&dl=0
« Last Edit: April 14, 2024, 06:10:55 pm by b789 »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2024, 08:08:25 pm »
I can't figure Britania out (although I'm probably a fool for trying!). They went through a spell of doing a decent job of PoFA compliance - in fact, they are one of only two examples I've seen of a parking company actually meeting all of the conditions to hold a hirer liable, additional documents and all. Other times, they just don't seem to bother.

IanO

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2024, 07:36:05 pm »
Hello, so I got a reply from Brittania, they said “ It is our choice as a car park management company, to decide whether to refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, when we issue a Parking Charge Notice. Not referring to or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charge Notices does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because you over stayed the maximum time permitted for parking at this car park. The store operates as a 120 minutes maximum stay car park.
Britannia Parking is an active member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and we follow their Approved Operators Scheme, Code of Practice at all times. As advised under section 19 and 20 for England and Wales or Section 27 and 28 for Scotland, of the BPA’s Code of Practice, regarding signage and notifying the driver of the terms and conditions.” then they waffled on a bit more, and ended with “ Having considered the content of your letter and our internal review, as this is your first Parking Charge Notice appeal, we are prepared to cancel the notice; with the understanding that you will not continue to breach the terms and conditions; as you are now aware of the maximum stay time permitted for this car park.”.

So that’s good!
But are they correct in their opening statement that they have a choice whether or not to refer to PoFA?

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: +11/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2024, 07:54:49 pm »
Of course they have a choice whether to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA. If they choose to comply, they can then recover the charge from the keeper if they don't know the drivers identity.

If they choose not to comply, then they cannot recover the charge from the keeper. If the drivers identity is not known and the keeper chooses not to reveal the identity of the driver, then, as in this case, even though they have not admitted as much, they have nowhere to go.

Quote
The Parking Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because you over stayed the maximum time permitted for parking at this car park.

The parking charge was not issued to "your vehicle". It was issued to you as the keeper of the vehicle. The driver was liable but they have no idea who the driver was. Because they did not comply with the strict requirement of PoFA, they cannot hold youth keeper liable and so cancelled it.

They have no idea if you overstayed. They have no idea if you were the driver.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2024, 07:56:53 pm by b789 »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Brittania parking - PCN for overstaying 2 hours in supermarket
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2024, 08:47:11 pm »
The registered keeper received a PCN for unwittingly staying over this time (2 and a half hours).

Not a giant leap to the RK was the driver IMO.

OP, in my opinion PoFA is a unique piece of legislation where parliament has interfered with a centuries-old legal principle by saying that someone who was not party to a contract and could possibly not know anything about the contract or the parties thereto could be held liable for one of the parties' breach.

But the creditor's right to be able to hold the keeper liable is subject to satisfying specific conditions, what we refer to as 'PoFA'.