Free Traffic Legal Advice

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

Updated details on original post, if I've missed anything please let me know. Appreciate it.

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.

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.

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.