04-21-2026, 12:44 PM
This case concerns a Parking Charge Notice (private parking firm) issued by Britannia, relating to an alleged contravention on Friday, 20 February 2026. The notice itself is dated Thursday, 05 March 2026, and I first became aware of it via received initial notice.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Location:Mill Hill - Waitrose, 2 Langstone Way, NW7 1GU.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 09 March 2026 (17 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent:
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. G24 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 Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Additional notes provided:
This was the initial response to the above from Brittania:
Re: Parking Charge Number A7346736
Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.
Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings, we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
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. Not referring to
or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charges does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
It is not a requirement that we must notify you of your Parking Charge within 14 days. This only
applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a
Parking Charge. As we did not, we have 6 months in which we may notify you of the Parking
Charge.
We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please submit the requested additional evidence or comments through our website using the link
below. You will need your Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration:
https://www.britannia-parking.co.uk/en-gb/appeal/
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
The notice appears to have been issued as By post (ANPR/camera). Driver identified status: NO. Equality Act considerations: No. The location is stated as Location:Mill Hill - Waitrose, 2 Langstone Way, NW7 1GU.
A preliminary Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) assessment indicates NON_COMPLIANT: Likely outside PoFA paragraph 9 timing window. Route applied: PoFA paragraph 9 (postal NtK, no windscreen NtD). The notice is treated as given on Monday, 09 March 2026 (17 days after the alleged event). On this basis, keeper liability may not be established.
Current stage:
- Notice responded to: Yes
- Debt recovery letters: No
- Letter of Claim: No
- County Court claim: No
Response/appeal already sent:
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. G24 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 Parking have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Additional notes provided:
This was the initial response to the above from Brittania:
Re: Parking Charge Number A7346736
Thank you for your appeal.
This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant, however, payment can still be sought under the old
‘implied-contract-with-the-driver’ rules used prior to POFA.
Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not
nominate anyone else.
Britannia Parking have made no assumptions as to the identity of the driver. We have written to you
as the vehicle’s keeper to inform you of any outstanding contraventions against your vehicle. If you
inform us of the driver’s details, we will pursue them for the Parking Charge. Please be aware that
the identity of the driver does not affect the validity of a Parking Charge.
In addition, should this Parking Charge reach court proceedings, we will put in a request to the
judge that the insurance certificate for the vehicle to reviewed as evidence, to determine who was
able to drive the vehicle at the time of the contravention.
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. Not referring to
or quoting POFA 2012 on a Parking Charges does not mean that it was not correctly issued.
It is not a requirement that we must notify you of your Parking Charge within 14 days. This only
applies if we refer to the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 when we issue a
Parking Charge. As we did not, we have 6 months in which we may notify you of the Parking
Charge.
We have placed the Parking Charge on hold for 14 days to allow for you to send this information.
Please be aware due to awaiting for additional evidence your appeal response may exceed our 28
day deadline.
Please submit the requested additional evidence or comments through our website using the link
below. You will need your Parking Charge Number and Vehicle Registration:
https://www.britannia-parking.co.uk/en-gb/appeal/
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Britannia Parking
Please can I have advice on the strongest next steps and defence points for this case.
