Free Traffic Legal Advice

It must be "issued" in time for it to be deemed as "given" within 14 days. Allow two working days for delivery, and then that is the date it is "given".

With a contravention date of 28th November and an issue date of 16th December, you don't even have to try and calculate it to see that it has not been "given" within the timescale defined in PoFA. It would have had to have been issued no later than 10th December to comply.

So, an easy one to defeat... as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

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.

Just had a PDF letter attachment in an email response from Britannia PArking.

They admit that their PCN is not POFA compliant but claim payment can still be sought under the old ‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.

They have asked me to disclose the name of the driver at the time of the incident.

Full response doc from Britania PArking is at the following location:

https://imgur.com/a/Yj8hUEp

Would appeciate advice on where I should go from here.

That's brilliant 😁
Thanks again, I'll send the above as a response to them. Cheers

Just received a reply from Britannia Parking. They have rejected the appeal and gone to a lot of trouble to include maps, images of signage and full photos of entry and exit.
They have provided a POPLA verification code : [Removed by mod]


Pages of the rejection letter are at the following links

[Removed by mod]

Would appreciate advice on progressing to POPLA appeal stage. Presumably there is no risk that the appeal will not be successful since the original PCN was not issued within 14 days of the alleged infringement?

Thanks

None of their waffle or photos mean anything as long as the they don't know the drivers identity. You, as the Keeper, cannot be liable for the charge.

You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit your POPLA appeal. Someone will provide you with advice on your POPLA appeal soon. Remind us in a couple of days to assist if you've not had a response. No rush.

We sometimes advocate something of a 'kitchen sink' approach to POPLA appeals, but given the open and shut nature of the lack of PoFA compliance, I'd be tempted to keep things short and straightforward, and force Britannia to engage with the issue at hand (or, more likely, withdraw).

There's no rush to submit anything, so await other views, but here's a basic starter:

POPLA Appeal

[NAME] (Registered Keeper) (Appellant)

-Vs-

Britannia Parking Group Limited (Operator)

Vehicle Registration Mark:[VRM]
 POPLA Reference Code: [POPLA REFERENCE]
 Parking Charge Notice Number: [PCN REFERENCE]

Case Overview:
I, the registered keeper (“I”/“the Appellant”) of the above vehicle (VRM: _______), received a parking charge notice via post from Britannia Parking Group Limited (“the Operator”), which purported to be a Notice to Keeper. I appealed to the Operator, who acknowledged and subsequently rejected my appeal. It is my position that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I have no liability for the parking charge, and that my appeal should therefore be upheld. My appeal is on the following ground:

No keeper liability: the Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (“PoFA”/“the Act”):
The operator does not not know the identity of the driver and is therefore seeking to recover the charge from me, the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to be able to recover any unpaid charges from me as the registered keeper, the operator must comply with the requirements outlined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Britannia have chosen not to do so. Helpfully, the operator confirmed this in writing, when responding to my appeal:

"This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant"

Even if they had claimed to be seeking to hold me liable using the provisions of PoFA, they have failed to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended, as specified by 9(5) of the Act.

Date of Parking: 28/11/2024
Date of PCN issue: 16/12/2024
Date of presumed service: 18/12/2024
Elapsed time period: 20 days

As Britannia concede that they are not seeking to rely on the provisions of PoFA to hold me liable as the keeper, and as there is no evidence as to who was driving, I cannot be held liable for the charge, and my appeal should be upheld.

Just respond with... "Are you rally that effing stupid?" Pass this to a responsible adult and see if they really want to waste their court and hearing fees. Mention VCS v Edward 2023 [HOKF6C9C]. Idiots.