Pcn

[winston00]

Hello all,

I’m dealing with a Parking Charge Notice issued by Britannia Parking for their car park on Exeter Road, Bournemouth (former Punshon Memorial Church site).

The key issue I’ve identified is that the PCN misstates the site address.

• The PCN gives only a postcode and location description which does not correspond with the actual land parcel where the vehicle was parked.
• The land itself is correctly registered at HM Land Registry under a different postcode/address.
• Planning applications for this same site show a long-running pattern: while the block plans and red line boundaries were correct, the address/postcode details used by Britannia were repeatedly incorrect.
• For motorists, this is more serious than in planning, because on a PCN there is no map or grid reference to “rescue” the mistake. The motorist is simply told they were parked at a site which technically does not exist under that description.

I believe this misdescription raises issues under:

• Contract law – the alleged contract must clearly identify the land where the terms apply.
• BPA Code of Practice – operators must be transparent and accurately identify sites.
• DVLA data access rules – keeper data should not be requested for sites that are misdescribed.

Has anyone here dealt with similar cases where a PCN is undermined because the site/location was incorrectly identified? Any case law or past forum threads would be appreciated.

Thanks,
winston00

[des8]

I came across a similar situation where the location stated on the PCN was the centre of a bridge over the River Tawe in Swansea! (the actual car park was half a mile up the road)
A brief letter to the parking company, and nothing more was heard!

If you want you could post up a redacted copy (leave in all dates & times but remove name, address and all reference numbers) so it can be examined for any other errors.

Don't forget, if you do communicate with them, do not identify the driver.

[winston00]

Hi DES8, thanks again for the advice so far.

I’m dealing with a single Britannia Parking PCN from the Exeter Road car park in Bournemouth (former Punshon Memorial Church site). The original PCN was issued in December 2024, followed by a reminder notice in February 2025.

From what I can see, my defence will centre on three points:

1. Procedural issue – the claim appears to have been filed a few days late.
2. Grace period – the alleged overstay was only 11 minutes, which should fall within the BPA’s mandatory grace period.
3. Location defect – the PCN states the location as BH2 5BD, but the registered land parcel at HM Land Registry (Title DT377300, The Mast Ltd) is BH2 5AJ.

That last point isn’t just a one-off error. Britannia have been using the postcode BH2 5BD for this site since at least 2018 in their planning applications and operational paperwork. The council let it slide because the block plans still showed the right land, but motorists only ever see the mis-stated postcode on PCNs, with no map or grid reference to clarify.

At this stage I’m just waiting for the court claim papers so I can prepare and file a full defence. I’ll upload a redacted copy of the PCN shortly for a technical check.

[winston00]

Here’s what I know so far

• The case: One Britannia PCN at Exeter Road, Bournemouth (former Punshon Memorial Church site). Now at small claim stage.
• Defence angles identified:
  1. Procedural issue – claim appears to have been filed a few days late.
  2. Grace period – alleged overstay was only 11 minutes, BPA Code of Practice allows a mandatory 10-minute grace period.
  3. Location defect – PCN states BH2 5BD, but the correct Land Registry parcel (Title DT377300, The Mast Ltd) is BH2 5AJ.
• Postcode history (planning chain):
  • 2015, 2016, 2018 → Britannia used BH2 5BD.
  • From 2021 onwards → they switched to BH2 5AH.
  • At no point has the correct postcode BH2 5AJ been used in any Britannia application, PCN, or signage.
  • This means 7+ years of defective/misdescribed paperwork.
• Landowner consent issue:
  • Britannia need unredacted authority from The Mast Ltd (freeholder).
  • The site is also subject to 1935 drainage rights which now vest in Wessex Water.
  • That means Britannia arguably need two consents:
    1. From The Mast Ltd (landowner).
    2. From Wessex Water (statutory undertaker with drainage rights).
  • Without both, their authority to issue PCNs is incomplete.
• Timeline of Applications (2015–2025):

2015	7-2015-643-T	BH2 5BD	BH2 5AJ
2016	7-2016-643-U	BH2 5BD	BH2 5AJ
2018	7-2018-643-V	BH2 5BD	BH2 5AJ
2018	7-2018-643-W	BH2 5BD	BH2 5AJ
2021	7-2021-643-X	BH2 5AH	BH2 5AJ
2023	7-2023-643-Y	BH2 5AH	BH2 5AJ
2024	7-2024-643-Z	BH2 5AH	BH2 5AJ

• Why this matters:
  • This is not a one-off typo but a systemic issue going back to 2018.
  • Every motorist ticketed at this site since then may have been issued a PCN with the wrong postcode and no clear contract location.
  • I’ll be acting as lay representative, and for full disclosure this research has been conducted with the assistance of ChatGPT-5, who has helped me gather, test, and structure the evidence.
  • Their voice is valid here too: this case has been analysed against planning documents, Land Registry titles, and BPA/DVLA requirements — all cross-checked.

---

⚠️ I’d really appreciate feedback from members on how best to frame the postcode defect and the dual-consent issue when drafting the defence. I’ll upload the redacted PCN itself separately for a technical wording check.

Thanks all,
winston00

[des8]

Has this matter now reached the stage of a court claim and you are now drafting the defence?
Wording of defence will depend on what the defendant has disclosed (if anything) to the claimant about the identity of the driver, and the wording of the claim.



I note that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with PoFA 2012 Sch 4 sec 9 (2) (e) which states:

The notice must—
(e) ......... invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)......., to notify the creditor of the name of the driver ..........

(my emphasis)

That notice does not invite, but instructs the keeper has a limited time to pay the charge.
Later it instructs the keeper to inform them of the driver's identity.

[winston00]

Update – Exeter Road (Britannia/DCB Legal) – Status after Defence

Quick status check for the thread:

• Claim: Britannia Parking (via DCB Legal). Alleged contravention 15/12/2024 at “Exeter Park Road, BH2 5BD”.
• MCOL: AOS and Defence both filed on 11/07/2025 and are showing as received/accepted on MCOL.
• Next step: DCB Legal have emailed to say they’ve filed their N180 (Directions Questionnaire). I’ve not yet received my defendant N180 from the court—expecting it shortly.

Defence (filed) – headline points

1. Deny liability in full.
2. Payment attempt on site failed due to signal; payment was made via app once reception was obtained, covering the core parking period.
3. Grace periods (BPA CoP) cover the pre‑payment delay and ~12‑minute overstay.
4. Appeal submitted; procedural unfairness noted.
5. Excessive/punitive sum where payment was made.

Further points I plan to deploy at WS/evidence stage

• PoFA Sch 4 non‑compliance: NTK wording fails 9(2)(e) (doesn’t invite keeper to pay/name driver).
• Postcode defect: PCN/PoC cite BH2 5BD; the registered title parcel is BH2 5AJ (DT377300).
• Standing: strict proof of unredacted landowner authority (The Mast Ltd) and any statutory undertaker consents covering drainage rights.
• Abuse of process: £70 “debt recovery” add‑on.

Two questions for the hive mind

1. If the keeper appealed but did not explicitly admit to being the driver, does PoFA non‑compliance still block keeper liability in practice?
2. Best way to frame the postcode defect so it’s treated as a material misdescription (not trivial), given the PCN/PoC both anchor the location to BH2 5BD while the land title is BH2 5AJ?

N180 (when it arrives) – my intended responses (please sanity‑check)

• Mediation: Yes (happy to try).
• Small claims track: Yes.
• Determination without a hearing: No (factual disputes).
• Hearing venue: Defendant’s local court.
• Witnesses: 1 (Defendant).
• Dates unavailable: will list any.
• Other info: will note reliance on BPA grace, PoFA issues, location misdescription.

Thanks all for the guidance so far—really appreciate any tweaks on the N180 choices and how/when to drop the PoFA + postcode angles most effectively.

[winston00]

@DES8 – really appreciate the sharp eye on the NTK wording, great catch. That’s exactly the kind of detail I was hoping the forum would spot.

If you’d like to see any other redacted documents (PCN, claim form, filed defence, etc.) just say the word and I’ll get them uploaded.

At the moment I’ve filed defence (11/07/25) and I’m just waiting on my own N180 from the court – I’ve seen DCB’s copy but not mine yet.

[winston00]

Hi all an update
Quick update on where things stand:

• A CPR 31.14 request has now been sent to DCB Legal, asking for:
  1. The PCN/NTK relied on.
  2. The unredacted landowner contract showing Britannia’s authority.
  3. Any consents/licences with statutory undertakers (drainage parcel).
  4. The signage plan/terms relied on.
  5. A copy of the online appeal lodged.
• At the same time, a Subject Access Request (SAR) has been submitted to Britannia’s data protection team. That should flush out:
  • The original appeal wording,
  • All PCNs and reminders,
  • ANPR images and timestamps,
  • Internal notes relating to this case.

This way both sides of disclosure are being covered — CPR for the business evidence, SAR for the personal data.

I should also say clearly: I have no formal qualifications and I’m not a solicitor. I’m just a lay person defending a claim and learning as I go. Everything I post here is for discussion and to get feedback from the forum.

I’ve also been working with ChatGPT (AI) throughout this process. It’s helped me organise evidence, draft letters, and understand the rules, but it is not a lawyer either — it just helps me structure things so I can bring them here for proper review.

Thanks again for the guidance so far. I’ll keep you posted when CPR or SAR replies land.

Winston00

[winston00]

Just to add: I keep reminding myself of a simple question — “What would love do?”

Britannia and DCB aren’t the enemy. This isn’t about anger or fighting people. It’s about shining light on the process, finding truth, and making sure fairness is upheld.
Thank you all
Winston00

[des8]

Fairness ??????????? Britannia and DCBL aren't interested in fairness, only money.

You might have problems.
You have filed a defence on very limited grounds and if your judge is a stickler, that is to what you will be restricted..
If you want to raise further points you should be applying for the courts permission to amend the defence.
You cannot add points you intend to raise on the bottom of the N180 form

I suggest you craft the witness statement very carefully and include a skeleton argument "to assist the court" and in that document you include BRIEFLY the points you want to make

Re earlier questions;
(i)If the driver was not identified no assumption can be made that the keeper was the driver unless there is evidence (Vehicle Control Services vs Edwards HoKF6C9C 25.04.2023)
(ii)inaccurate address I would just state that the Act requires the address be specified (i.e. describe something clearly and exactly Cambridge dictionary)
The PCN was inaccurate in that the Post code was incorrect..(you will need to show that Exeter Park Road is long and is covered by Postcodes BH2 xx (list them all) which do not include BH2 5BD.
The problem with this argument is that you show by your other arguments that you have been able to identify the location so the judge could quite easily ignore that it does not comply with the requirements of PoFA2012

[winston00]

“Thank you for your candour, it’s really appreciated. I’m working through the WS and skeleton with your advice in mind.”

[des8]

Just to clarify my post 11, which on re-reading I realise might be misinterpreted.
The skeleton would be a document separate to the witness statement.
The skeleton needs to be succinct summary of your case, including legal, evidential or procedural issues.
It is there to assist the court, so should be easy to follow

[winston00]

hey DES8 once again thank.
Defendant’s Skeleton Argument (Working Draft)


Claim No: [xxxx]
Britannia Parking v xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

---

A. Introduction

1. This Skeleton is filed separately from the Witness Statement.
2. It provides a succinct summary of the Defendant’s case, to assist the Court.

---

B. Issues in Dispute

1. Keeper liability (PoFA) – The Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 requirements: no period of parking, misdescribed land, and/or late service. Keeper liability is not established.
2. Postcode/site defect – Claimant’s documents cite multiple postcodes (BH2 5BD / BH2 5AH) whereas the Land Registry shows BH2 5AJ. The “relevant land” is uncertain.
3. Grace and consideration periods – The BPA Code requires a consideration period on arrival and a minimum 10 minutes on departure. ANPR timestamps show entry/exit only, not a “period of parking.”
4. Abuse of process (added sums) – The claim includes an extra £70. PoFA 4(5) caps keeper liability at the parking charge. Excel v Wilkinson (appeal, 2020) confirms such add-ons are unrecoverable.
5. Landowner authority – The Claimant is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous written landowner contract conferring authority to offer contracts and to litigate.
6. Keeper name discrepancy – DVLA V5C shows the keeper as xxxxxxx. The Defendant’s legal name is xxxxxxxxx. The claim pursues xxxxx. PoFA 9(2)(a) requires the NTK to identify the registered keeper.

---

C. Relief Sought

1. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim. In the alternative, any unrecoverable sums should be struck out, leaving at most the principal parking charge.

---

Working draft of my Skeleton Argument for feedback. Witness Statement to follow separately. Any suggested trims or tweaks welcome.

Many thanks

[winston00]

Thanks DES8 — you really saved my bacon last night. Appreciate the clarification and the steer, it kept me on track.

[winston00]

Hi all, quick update before filing N180.

I’ve now drafted the core documents for review:

• Witness Statement (redacted) – sets out payment made, grace periods, PoFA defects, ANPR inadequacy, identity inconsistencies, authority/planning defects (including absence of advertising consent), and inflated claim.
• Skeleton Argument (redacted) – short, numbered issues mirroring the WS.
• Judge’s Sheet (redacted) – one-page roadmap for the judge to skim before the hearing.

Bundle exhibits are indexed A–G. Planning history/searches now confirm no advertising consent has ever been granted for signage at this site, despite multiple land use consents.

Would welcome a peer review to check tone, structure, and whether anything needs tightening before submission.

Thanks all,
Witness Statement of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Claim No: [XXXX] | In the County Court at [Court Name] 1. Introduction

I am the Defendant and the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx
This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and is supported by the attached exhibits. 2. Payment and Grace Periods

On 15 xxxxxxxxxx 2024, I parked at xxxxxxxxxx Car Park, xxxxxxxxx. At 13:49, I paid £2.70 by mobile app, covering until 15:49 (Exhibit A). Entry 13:23 / Exit 16:01 equates to 26 minutes pre-payment and 12 minutes post-expiry. BPA Code (Exhibit B) requires a consideration period of 5–10 minutes and minimum 10-minute grace. Payment was made, so no financial loss occurred. 3. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012

The NTK must invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(d)). The PCN instead demanded payment under threat (Exhibit C). Keeper liability not established. 4. Identity Inconsistencies

Defendant named variously as: xxxxxxx (PCN, V5C), xxxxxx (appeal), xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Claim Form). This inconsistency undermines reliability of Claimant’s records (Exhibits D1–D4). 5. ANPR Evidence Inadequate

ANPR stills show only entry 13:23 and exit 16:01 (Exhibit E1). No logs disclosed (Exhibit E2). PoFA requires 'period of parking' (Sch 4 para 9(2)(a)). Excel v Lamoureux (2017, Skipton CC) held ANPR alone cannot prove this. 6. Authority, Consents, and Site Defects

Land is Title xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx (Exhibits F1, F2). Car park operator not landowner (Certificate B, Exhibit F4). No landowner contract disclosed. Planning approvals (2018–2024) authorised use of land only, no advertisement consent. 2018 refusal, enforcement notice, and Inspector’s decision confirm signage consent absent (Exhibits F5–F7). Register search shows no advertising consent (Exhibit F3). Tariff boards require express consent under 2007 Regs. None exists. Land subject to drainage rights (Exhibit F8). Claimant put to strict proof. 7. Abuse of Process – Inflated Claim

PCN was £100. Claim inflated to £170 (Exhibit G1). PoFA caps recovery at NTK sum (Exhibit G2). ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 allowed only core charge. County Court struck out false add-ons (Exhibits G3/G4). 8. Conclusion

Payment was made, NTK non-compliant, ANPR inadequate, identity inconsistent, authority unproven, signage unlawful, and claim inflated. Defendant invites Court to dismiss claim, or strike out sums beyond £100.
Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated are true.
Signed: __________________ Date: __________________