‘Failed To Make A Valid Payment’ but technically had - Britannia Parking - Flamborough

‘Failed To Make A Valid Payment’ but technically had - Britannia Parking - Flamborough
Posted by xhuxhzy on 25 Sep, 2024 18:55
Recently received a PCN from Britannia Parking that claims that the registered keeper has ‘failed to make a valid payment’.

Though i suspect the actual reason for this is that the vehicle had overstayed by approximately 22 minutes.

however there had been, what i would define as a ‘valid payment’ made and still have the ticket as proof.

Is this grounds for appeal, or at best a reduction in price? considering the vehicle had not theoretically broken the terms and conditions of what the letter states it had.

Or is it not classed as valid payment, due to the fact that the payment made does not cover the time stayed?

This happened at north landing car park in flamborough, which is ANPR controlled. Signage can be found on google maps.

I can provide any further details needed on request.

Thought i’d ask about, any advice and/or help is much appreciated, thanks.

EDIT: I as the registered keeper of the vehicle received a PCN on 25/09

The vehicle arrived on 14/09 at the car park at 14:49. After finding a parking space, The driver attempted to purchase a 2 hour ticket, but happened purchase a 1 hour ticket on accident instead at 14:53 (lasting until 15:53). All of the passengers of the vehicle then left the car park to make a short walk along the sea front. The driver had arrived back at the vehicle at approximately 15:59 (this is a rough estimate) staying at the car until it left the premises. During this time, a passenger of the vehicle had left to purchase a beverage (as it was a hot day) and use a public lavatory, returning back minutes before the vehicle eventually left at the premises at 16:14.

Link to car park location Here

Links to Images of PCN + Ticket:
PCN Front - https://ibb.co/Qm2sTS2
PCN Back - https://ibb.co/njz48Dh
Onsite Paid Parking Ticket - https://ibb.co/f087Z50

#1 Reply
Posted by DWMB2 on 25 Sep, 2024 19:23
Please read the following thread and provide as much of the information it asks for that you are able to - READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

If the payment the driver made did not cover the time they were parked, then there's not much mileage in arguing that it's wrong for Britannia to say the driver failed to make a valid payment.

But there may be other grounds upon which this can be challenged, which we can explore once you have provided the relevant information.

#2 Reply
Posted by xhuxhzy on 25 Sep, 2024 20:26
Updated details on original post, if I've missed anything please let me know. Appreciate it.

#3 Reply
Posted by b789 on 26 Sep, 2024 11:59
There is already another very similar case involving the same location and reason here:

PCN from Britannia Parking | Failed to make valid payment | Flamborough North Landing Overflow Carpark

Have a read of that thread and then come back and tell us if you want to fight it.

#4 Reply
Posted by xhuxhzy on 26 Sep, 2024 16:31
I have just read this thread, and it doesn't quite look as promising as I would have expected.

However, after closer inspection, I feel as though I may have picked up a couple of other concerns with the letter. I'd like to make it clear that these may be absolutely wrong and I could be way in over my head, but thought I'd present them, and see if they are worth fighting over. Please also note that I am not familiar with any of the regulations in the BPA CoP, so if there is an obvious regulation I've missed, I apologise. Appreciate anyone who takes the time to read and/or help.

Any mention of 'BP' refers to 'Britannia Parking'

I have a picture of the signage here, although slightly blurry, you can still see the reasons of which a PCN would be issued on the sign itself.

The PCN that was issued states the reasoning on the letter as 'Failed to make a valid payment', which is not clearly listed anywhere on this sign, or within the Terms and Conditions listed on the BP website as of 26/09/2024. It is not apparent to the driver on the sign that the validity of the payment would result in a PCN.

Moreover, a 'valid payment' is not defined at all by BP, which leads me to assume that this is subjective, unless this is properly defined elsewhere? I have images of a ticket and bank statement that would prove that the driver had made a payment, and the fact that this was received, accepted by BP and a parking ticket was printed with the word 'Paid' written on it leads me to argue that this payment was in fact valid. This payment covered a duration in which the car was parked on the particular day, but not the complete duration. The vehicle did not re-enter the land at any time throughout the day.

If the payment made is now invalid, this could imply that the payment was originally valid, but no longer is (nothing about this is mentioned in the terms of BP) or the other potential option is that the payment was never valid to begin with, which should have been declined?

If a payment was not valid, should the driver not have been made aware of this at the time of parking?

If the issue was that the vehicle had overstayed, shouldn't this have clearly been presented in the PCN? considering this was a particular condition on the signage - listed as 'exceed the time which had been paid to park'. Since this is not displayed on the PCN, do I have right to assume that this condition was not broken, as it is not recognised in the PCN by BP.

Validity is mentioned in their terms here. However, this states that it is in relation to the ticket itself, and not particularly the payment, which is the reasoning in the PCN. This also refers to a booking, I'm not sure if payment via an onsite machine is quite classed as a booking.

The pictures listed in the PCN are cropped and edited, and although they are not cropped when visited on the website, the black box covering the driver is still there and not added by me, but i figure this is a reasonable edit. The pictures are listed as evidence, along with times and location. I do not see how this relates to the validity of the payment itself, as it does not acknowledge how the payment was invalid at all.

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here and none of this matters, but I appreciate the help nonetheless.

#5 Reply
Posted by b789 on 26 Sep, 2024 17:11
Those Ts & Cs mentioned are for "pre-booked" parking. Not applicable here. The "contract" entered into by the driver is by conduct.

In the other thread, there was reference to a previous successful POPLA appeal due to the photos on the NtK being different from the file photos in that they had been cropped to fit the NtK. This invalidate the NtK because it was a breach of the BPA CoP section 21.5a:

Quote
Alteration of photographic evidence:

You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.

Whilst different assessors can make totally different decisions on the exact same evidence, it does not mean that it should't be attempted.

Also, the signs at the site are sparse and often hidden by tall grasses and other vehicles.

An unsuccessful POPLA assessment does not have any bearing on any future action. As mentioned, if this went all the way to a claim, it is still defendable and if they use a bulk litigator such as DCB Legal to file the claim, there is a greater than 99% chance of it eventually being discontinued.

#6 Reply
Posted by xhuxhzy on 27 Sep, 2024 01:40
Would this image further back up this point for 21.5a? I have left some of the reg visible, but this shows how the images on the letter are not just 'cropped or zoomed'. Image is of me holding up the physical PCN against the image listed on the website of the vehicle in question. https://ibb.co/JHZ5q30

On the top you can clearly see the letters are much thicker, and are slightly squished. This is clearly distorted.

I also took a look at the previous thread, comparing their images, you can see that the image on the PCN (Left) is squished compared to the original image (Right) https://ibb.co/jvVbTXB
This rules out any chances of this being a print issue.

The assessor mentioned in the previous thread that 'Section 21.51 (f) advises that they can be enhanced the image of the VRM for clarity'. When looking at the first image, you can see that the bottom letters are much more legible than the above, due to the larger spacing under the M, making the letter clearer. It is also safe to argue that distorting the image would not improve clarity, as the image can now be deceiving.

#7 Reply
Posted by b789 on 27 Sep, 2024 07:25
You could try that argument but the main one is that the photo on the NtK has been cropped from the original file photo.

So, this is a breach of section 21.5a of the BPA Code of Practice (v9). The rule clearly states that images used as photographic evidence must not be altered digitally or by other means, except in specific circumstances such as blurring faces or enhancing the VRM for clarity. The fact that the image in the Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not show a timestamp, while the same photo on Britannia's website does contain a timestamp, indicates that the image has been altered, either by cropping or failing to include the timestamp contemporaneously.

Altering the image in this way directly contravenes the requirement to maintain the integrity of the photographic evidence, as the timestamp is a crucial element in proving the time the vehicle was captured by ANPR. Without it, Britannia has failed to demonstrate that the photographic evidence is accurate and reliable.

The alteration clearly breaches the BPA Code of Practice and can be used in a defence or appeal to challenge the validity of the photographic evidence provided by Britannia. Failure to comply with any part of the CoP invalidates the PCN and, in theory, POPLA should agree that the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Don’t forget though, POPLA is funded by the very PPCs it is supposed to be assessing for failures. It’s all a bit incestuous.

#8 Reply
Posted by xhuxhzy on 27 Sep, 2024 11:03
So the fact that the photo has been cropped, removing specifically the time stamp is a stronger argument for 'photographic evidence being digitally altered' (BPA CoP 21.5a) than it being squished and distorted digitally?

I wanted to see if there was an argument against the previous assessors final comments in the thread mentioned before at the same location, in order to cover more potential failure points. I feel as though the fact that images are digitally distorted would support the argument that the digital alterations were not made in attempt to enhance clarity, and the letters and numbers are in fact altered, Breaching BPA CoP (v9) 21.5a(f) As follows:

You must not digitally or by other means alter images
used as photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the
image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to
alter the letters and numbers displayed.

#9 Reply
Posted by b789 on 27 Sep, 2024 12:27
If you believe that the distortion of the image is a breach of the BPA CoP, then include that in your appeal. I have given you one instance of alteration. Include as any points as you can.

Ultimately, Britannia are going to reject any initial appeal. You have a roughly 50% chance of being successful at POPLA.

Not being successful at POPLA is not the end of the process and any unsuccessful POPLA appeal is not binding on you and has no relevance going forward. As long as you are aware of the worst case scenario if you were unsuccessful in defending a claim.

If POPLA fails, they will send reminders and debt collector letters which will have then added a fake £70 fee. All debt collector letters and demands can be safely ignored. They have no power to do anything except try and scare the victim into paying out of ignorance of their rights and the law.

At some point, Britannia will have to decide whether it is worth pursuing you though the county court for the alleged debt. They may never bother. If they do, then any claim must be defended.

A claim would be for £170 plus Claim fee £35 and fixed legal costs of £50 plus a bit of interest. So around £260. Again, they hope that you will now capitulate at the fear of litigation and ignorance of the the law. However, as long as it is defended, even if you lost, the judge should not allow the fake £70 fee and so you'd owe less than the original claim amount.

There's no danger of a CCJ on your credit record as long as the judgment amount is paid in full within 30 day of the judgment. It is completely expunged form the record.

However, as stated, that is a worst case scenario. What is much more likely is that Britannia will use one of the bottom-dwelling bulk litigators to file the claim. Depending on which one, most cases are either struck out due to woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC) or they discontinue before they are required to pay the hearing fee and they go looking for easier prey who don't have the advice they get here.

Even if it were to go all the way to a hearing, there is a much better chance that you will win anyway. You only owe Britannia debt if a judge says you do.