Southampton PCN, POFA non compliant

[b789]

Your POPLA appeal will be strong, because Britannia have now expressly admitted in writing that the Parking Charge is not PoFA compliant. That is the key point. If they cannot rely on PoFA, they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Their only possible claim would be against the driver, and they have produced no evidence that the Kkeeper was the driver.

Their “old implied-contract-with-the-driver” point is a distraction. A driver may, in principle, be liable under contract law if a contract was properly formed and breached. But that does not make the Keeper liable. PoFA is the statutory mechanism that allows keeper liability. Britannia have admitted they cannot use it.

Their claim that there is a “probability” that the keeper was the driver is not law. There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was driving. That is simply Britannia trying to replace evidence with guesswork.

As for CCTV, seriously? How on earth would they identify the driver, even if they had CCTV? Could they or you or anyone take an image of a random person and identify who they are from that image? There is no magical unicorn database where you can input an image of someone and out will spit the identity details of that person (unless they are famous). They are not the police with forensic identification powers. This is an unregulated private parking firm of ex-clampers who will not be able to identify the driver if the Keeper does not do the job for them.

In any event, if they had clear evidence identifying the driver, they would not be waffling about “probability” or threatening to ask a judge to inspect an insurance certificate. That insurance certificate point is legally embarrassing nonsense. An insurance certificate does not prove who drove the vehicle on a particular day. It may show who is named on one policy, but it does not exclude other possible drivers, including people who may have their own third-party cover to drive other vehicles. Millions of motorists may be lawfully insured to drive vehicles not specifically insured in their own name, subject to their own policy terms. So Britannia’s suggestion that this could identify the driver merely exposes their ignorance.

You are now at POPLA stage. Do not correspond further with Britannia. You will submit the POPLA appeal as the registered keeper. Do not identify the driver. Do not say who was driving. Do not discuss who was insured. Attach Britannia’s rejection letter because it contains the admission that their Parking Charge is not PoFA compliant.

The POPLA appeal should lead with this point: Britannia have admitted that the Notice to Keeper is not PoFA compliant; therefore keeper liability does not arise; the driver has not been identified; and Britannia have provided no evidence capable of proving the keeper was the driver.

You have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal rejection letter to submit your POPLA appeal. I suggest you use the following as your POPLA appeal:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal as keeper. I deny any liability for this Parking Charge.

The driver has not been identified and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to do so. Britannia Parking Group Limited has admitted in writing that this Parking Charge is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, Britannia cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the registered keeper.

My appeal is made on the following grounds:

1. Britannia has admitted that the Parking Charge is not PoFA compliant, so keeper liability cannot arise.
   
2. Britannia has provided no evidence that the keeper was the driver.
   
3. Britannia’s assertion that there is a “probability” that the keeper was the driver is not law and is not evidence.
   
4. Britannia has failed to show that the driver entered into any enforceable contract.
   
5. Britannia is put to strict proof of its landowner authority and legal standing.
   
6. Britannia is put to strict proof that its signage was clear, prominent, compliant, and capable of creating a contract.
   
7. Britannia is put to strict proof of the alleged parking period and alleged breach.
   

1. Britannia has admitted that the Parking Charge is not PoFA compliant, so keeper liability cannot arise.

This is the primary appeal point. Britannia’s own appeal outcome letter states:

• “This Parking Charge is not POFA compliant”
  

That admission is fatal to any attempt to hold me liable as registered keeper.

The alleged parking event occurred on Friday 13 February 2026. The Notice to Keeper is dated Tuesday 3 March 2026. This was a postal ANPR/camera notice, with no windscreen notice served at the time. Therefore, if Britannia wished to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it was required to ensure that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the statutory period required by paragraph 9 of Schedule 4.

It was not.

Britannia has therefore admitted that it cannot rely on Schedule 4. In the absence of PoFA compliance, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. The operator’s only possible claim would be against the driver. The driver has not been identified.

POPLA must therefore allow this appeal.

2. There is no presumption that the registered keeper was the driver

Britannia attempts to avoid the consequence of its admitted PoFA failure by stating:

• “Under Contract Law there is a probability that the Keeper was the Driver if the Keeper does not nominate anyone else.”
  

That statement is wrong and legally embarrassing.

There is no legal presumption that the registered keeper was the driver. There is no rule of contract law which says that a keeper becomes liable merely because they do not nominate the driver. There is no rule which allows a private parking operator to replace statutory compliance with speculation.

Britannia has chosen to issue a Parking Charge to the keeper. It has admitted that it cannot rely on PoFA. It must therefore prove that the keeper was the driver. It has produced no such evidence.

A parking operator cannot say, in effect, “we cannot use PoFA, so we will simply assume or infer that the keeper was probably driving”. That is not evidence. That is conjecture.

The burden of proof remains with Britannia. It has failed to discharge that burden.

3. Britannia’s comments about insurance documents are irrelevant and do not prove driver identity

Britannia also states:

• “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.”
  

This point is irrelevant, misconceived, and evidentially worthless.

An insurance certificate does not prove who drove a vehicle on a particular date. At most, depending on the policy, it may show one or more persons named on a particular policy. That is not evidence of who was actually driving.

The fact that a person may have been insured to drive a vehicle does not prove that they did drive it. Conversely, the vehicle’s own policy would not necessarily identify every person who might lawfully have been able to drive it. Many motorists have their own insurance policies which may, depending on the terms, provide third-party cover to drive other vehicles with permission.

Therefore, even if an insurance document were produced, it would not establish the identity of the driver. It would not cure Britannia’s admitted PoFA failure. It would not create keeper liability. It would not prove the keeper was the driver.

This is simply another attempt by Britannia to distract from the basic legal problem: it has no PoFA keeper liability and no evidence of driver identity.

4. The alleged “implied-contract-with-the-driver” point does not assist Britannia against the keeper

Britannia states:

• “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.”
  

This does not assist Britannia.

If Britannia wishes to pursue the driver, it must identify and prove who the driver was. It has not done so.

The existence of a possible cause of action against a driver does not create liability against a keeper. That is precisely why Schedule 4 of PoFA exists. PoFA created a statutory route by which, subject to strict compliance, liability may be transferred from driver to keeper. Britannia has admitted it has not complied with that route.

Accordingly, Britannia cannot use a supposed implied contract with the driver to pursue the keeper.

5. Britannia is put to strict proof of landowner authority and standing

Britannia is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner, or from a party with sufficient proprietary interest in the land, to issue parking charges and to pursue them in its own name.

A mere witness statement or generic site agreement should not be accepted unless it clearly shows that Britannia had authority at the material time and at the precise location in question, namely Southampton - West Quay Retail Park, Harbour Parade, SO15 1BA.

Britannia is required to prove that its authority covers:

1. the specific land on which the vehicle is alleged to have been parked;
   
2. the date of the alleged event;
   
3. the right to issue parking charges;
   
4. the right to pursue unpaid parking charges;
   
5. the right to pursue charges through POPLA and, if necessary, legal proceedings;
   
6. the applicable terms, restrictions, grace periods, tariffs, and enforcement boundaries.
   

If Britannia cannot produce a contemporaneous, unredacted or sufficiently complete contract showing those matters, POPLA cannot be satisfied that Britannia has standing to pursue this charge.

6. Britannia is put to strict proof of clear and prominent signage capable of forming a contract

Britannia states that it meets the signage requirements and that the parking contract clearly states:

• “By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within the Property, you enter into a Contract with the Britannia Parking and agree to comply with the Parking Contract.”
  

Britannia is put to strict proof of that assertion.

Britannia must provide clear contemporaneous evidence of the signage in place on the material date, including:

1. a site map showing the location of every sign;
   
2. photographs of the entrance signage;
   
3. photographs of the tariff/payment signs;
   
4. photographs of the full terms and conditions;
   
5. evidence of the signs as they would have appeared to a driver entering, parking, leaving the vehicle, and attempting to pay;
   
6. evidence that the parking charge sum was prominently displayed;
   
7. evidence that the payment terms were clear;
   
8. evidence that the alleged contractual terms were legible before any alleged contract was formed.
   

Generic stock images or undated photographs should not be accepted. Britannia must prove what signs were actually present on 13 February 2026 and that they were clear, prominent and legible.

A parking contract cannot be formed by hidden, unclear, small-print, badly placed, or inadequately lit terms. The driver must have had a fair opportunity to read the terms before being bound by them.

7. Britannia is put to strict proof of the alleged parking period and breach

Britannia alleges that the Parking Charge was issued because a valid ticket was not purchased.

Britannia is put to strict proof of the full basis for that allegation, including:

1. the vehicle’s actual entry time;
   
2. the vehicle’s actual exit time;
   
3. the alleged period of parking, as opposed to mere ANPR entry and exit timestamps;
   
4. the payment records for the relevant period;
   
5. whether any payment was attempted;
   
6. whether the payment machines were operational;
   
7. whether app or remote payment options were functioning;
   
8. whether the VRM search was carried out manually and accurately;
   
9. whether any keying error or payment mismatch was checked;
   
10. whether the driver was allowed a proper consideration period before any contract could be formed.
    

ANPR entry and exit images do not, by themselves, prove a period of parking. They show only the time at which a vehicle passed cameras. They do not show when the vehicle was parked, whether the driver was reading signs, looking for a space, attempting to pay, queuing, leaving, or otherwise not parked.

Britannia’s own letter refers to consideration and grace periods. It states that motorists are given a 10-minute consideration period on arrival before entering into the parking contract. Britannia is therefore put to strict proof that any alleged breach occurred after a proper consideration period had expired and after the driver had been given a fair opportunity to read the terms and decide whether to accept them.

8. Conclusion

Britannia has admitted that this Parking Charge is not PoFA compliant.

The driver has not been identified.

There is no legal presumption that the keeper was the driver.

Britannia has produced no evidence that the keeper was the driver.

Britannia’s comments about “probability”, “implied contract”, and insurance documents do not create keeper liability and do not prove driver identity.

In the absence of PoFA compliance, Britannia cannot recover the charge from me as keeper. POPLA is therefore invited to allow this appeal and direct Britannia to cancel the Parking Charge.