POPLA Decisions

LDast

It's not complicating it. It is a matter of fact and law that POPLA is not permitted to adjudicate appeals for Penalty Notices issued for alleged breaches of railway byelaws even if they are on private land. Railway byelaws are statutory regulations that govern conduct on railway property, and Penalty Notices issued under these byelaws fall outside the scope of POPLA's jurisdiction.

POPLA's role is limited to dealing with appeals related to PCNs, not PNs, issued on private land by operators who are BPA members. Penalty Notices issued under railway byelaws are governed by statutory law rather than contractual terms between the parking operator and the motorist, and thus do not fall under POPLA's remit.

If APCOA and SABA have been issuing Penalty Notices (PNs) under railway byelaws and collecting payments directly into their own accounts rather than following the statutory process (which would involve prosecution in the magistrates' court and payment to the public purse), then every motorists who has ever paid these charges has been misled or defrauded.

Potential Fraud by False Representation (Fraud Act 2006):

As APCOA and SABA have issued these notices in a manner that suggested statutory authority but collected payments as if the PNs were private charges, it is simply fraud by false representation. The elements of this offence are:

False representation: The PN purported to be a statutory penalty, but the payment process did not follow the statutory requirements.
Dishonesty: The companies have knowingly misrepresented the nature of the notice.
Intention to gain: Payments collected under the guise of statutory penalties were kept as revenue, rather than going to the public purse.

Misleading Representation of the PN as a "Fine" or Statutory Penalty:

If the wording in the PN and associated communications gave the impression that the notice was a statutory fine or penalty that needed to be paid directly to avoid prosecution, motorists would reasonably believe they were paying a lawful penalty. Under railway byelaws, genuine penalties should be processed through the criminal justice system, not treated as payments to a private company.

Presenting the PN as a "fine" while diverting the payments to a private entity rather than the public purse misrepresents the legal nature of the notice. This constitutes a misleading commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, where consumers are deceived about their legal obligations and the consequences of non-payment.

Scamming and Defrauding Motorists:

In common language, if motorists are led to believe they are paying a statutory penalty to avoid prosecution in the magistrates court when in fact they are settling a private "offered contract," then they are essentially scammed or defrauded. This practice exploits the motorists' lack of understanding of the distinction between a civil parking charge and a statutory penalty.

APCOA and SABA have gained financially at the expense of motorists' mistaken belief about the legitimacy and purpose of the payment.

If the PN does not comply with statutory enforcement method, then any payments made under the impression of paying a "fine" can be argued to have been made under misleading pretences. Any motorists could seek legal redress, including refunds, if it can be established that they were misled into paying amounts not legally owed.

So, whilst on this forum we are aware of the scam and can advise anyone caught up in it, both APCOA and SABA could be liable to refund millions and also face criminal prosecution for this fraudulent activity.

The actions of APCOA and SABA meet the criteria for fraudulent conduct or a scam. Anyone who has already paid the "PN" has been misled into believing they were paying a legitimate statutory fine, while in reality, the payment went into the private companies' revenue. This discrepancy amounts to deception or misrepresentation, which requires further investigation and the legal consequences.

5pryor

Hi there, newbie here so I hope this is the right place to ask.....

I've had an appeal rejected by ParkingEye, with the option to escalate to Popla.

Context: I parked in error at a bay close to my work, following the implementation of a new parking scheme.

As part of the new scheme, we'd been advised to use a new car park - poorly sign posted and untarmacked (my employers fault), but I made the mistake of thinking the bays next to the car park were also OK to use. There is a confusing sign next to these which I misinterpreted to be from my employer. 

Acknowledging I made an error here, I'm happy to pay for a fine but have also been charged for a second day, sent before I received notice of the first fine.  

Do I have any chance of getting the 2nd charge rescinded or should I just bite the bullet and pay both now? 

TIA for any advice, it's really appreciated. 

Fruitcake

5pryor said:

Hi there, newbie here so I hope this is the right place to ask.....

I've had an appeal rejected by ParkingEye, with the option to escalate to Popla.

Context: I parked in error at a bay close to my work, following the implementation of a new parking scheme.

As part of the new scheme, we'd been advised to use a new car park - poorly sign posted and untarmacked (my employers fault), but I made the mistake of thinking the bays next to the car park were also OK to use. There is a confusing sign next to these which I misinterpreted to be from my employer. 

Acknowledging I made an error here, I'm happy to pay for a fine but have also been charged for a second day, sent before I received notice of the first fine.  

Do I have any chance of getting the 2nd charge rescinded or should I just bite the bullet and pay both now? 

TIA for any advice, it's really appreciated. 

Nobody here will suggest you ever pay an unregulated private parking company.

Please read the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES then start your own thread and provide as much relevant information as possible, but without giving away any personal details. Please do not respond on this thread that is about PoPLA decisions only.

5pryor

Fruitcake said:

5pryor said:

Hi there, newbie here so I hope this is the right place to ask.....

I've had an appeal rejected by ParkingEye, with the option to escalate to Popla.

Context: I parked in error at a bay close to my work, following the implementation of a new parking scheme.

As part of the new scheme, we'd been advised to use a new car park - poorly sign posted and untarmacked (my employers fault), but I made the mistake of thinking the bays next to the car park were also OK to use. There is a confusing sign next to these which I misinterpreted to be from my employer. 

Acknowledging I made an error here, I'm happy to pay for a fine but have also been charged for a second day, sent before I received notice of the first fine.  

Do I have any chance of getting the 2nd charge rescinded or should I just bite the bullet and pay both now? 

TIA for any advice, it's really appreciated. 

Nobody here will suggest you ever pay an unregulated private parking company.

Please read the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES then start your own thread and provide as much relevant information as possible, but without giving away any personal details. Please do not respond on this thread about successful PoPLA appeals only.

Thanks, and sorry! 

Coupon-mad

See this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6556789/popla-reject-appeal-anything-i-can-do

POPLA and Euro Car Parks seemingly 'conspiring' to pretend that the Equality Act 2010 doesn't impose a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments of time.

The victim has a 'TSF leg frame' and would certainly meet the legal definition of disability (this sort of frame isn't short term treatment). Not just a 'simple' broken leg situation; this is a mobility issue affecting daily life for well over 12 months.

This appellant is indisputably allowed more time.

POPLA has blamed the appellant (put a legally unfair burden of proof on them) for being unable to prove that they asked in a store on the day to extend their shopping time, and had given their VRM to be added to the 'exempt list':

suz12_2 said:

@Coupon-mad I can't load original but here are screenshots of summary from polpla 

ride165

Operator: Initial Parking
Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to unpaid tariff time. Assessor summary of your case The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They paid in good faith for their parking. They also purchased additional time upon return to the site. • They definitely entered the complete registration number on the machine when buying the second ticket. • It was only when they looked at the receipt that they noticed the machine had only printed two characters of their vehicle registration number. They believe the machine to be problematic. • They refute the PCN as it arrived 15 days after the date of notice. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to: • The parking operator has submitted a standard document and is trying to rinse users of the car park. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. The two parking tickets they purchased. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant has explained that they purchased multiple tariffs on the day, providing the two tickets are evidence. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s evidence of payment, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to cancel the PCN. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I appreciate the appellant did not intend to breach the terms and conditions. Section 17 of the Code recognises that drivers are more frequently required to enter their vehicle registration when paying for parking. Section 17.4B requires the parking operator to have a process for dealing with major keying errors. A major keying error is where more than one character has been entered incorrectly. For example: • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits If during the first stage of appeal, the appellant has provided sufficient evidence to the parking operator to show they made a valid payment, the parking operator is required to offer a reduced charge of £20. When the vehicle registration was not entered correctly, the parking operator has not been able to match their payment to the vehicle until the first stage of appeal. The parking operator has then incurred costs to obtain the appellant’s details from the DVLA and issue the PCN. This is why the parking operator offers a reduced fee of no more than £20, to recover the costs incurred by the error. The parking operator offered the reduced charge of £20 in its letter dated 22/08/2024, as required. When the appellant brought their appeal to POPLA, they rejected this offer and the parking operator would be within their rights to seek the full PCN amount of £100. The appellant also refutes the PCN as it was not delivered until 15 days after the PCN had been issued. Section 22.8 of the Code talks about the timescales allowed. Within this section it states that parking operators have up to seven months after the parking event to issue the PCN, if the parking operator is not using PoFA 2012 and it clear who the driver of the vehicle was. Therefore, the parking operator has sent the PCN within the specified timescales. The appellant has raised a complaints regarding the parking operator as they feel their practices are trying to rinse users of the car park. It is the remit of POPLA to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly based on the parking contract and this does not extend to complaints regarding the parking operator or how they manage the site. If the appellant would like to take this complaint further, they could do so directly with the parking operator. I have included a link to their complaints policy here initialparking.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2022/08/Complaints-Policy-2022.pdf. After considering the evidence from both parties, as a major keying error occurred, the parking operator identified unpaid tari! time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.


Unfortunately I didn't check on here before I submitted an appeal with the operator or POPLA. I find it incredulous that they didn't waive the PCN in the first instance once I provided the photographic evidence of the two tickets. I chucked them both in the glovebox as we left as I had been warned by a guy working at the site that people had been stung by the operator, it was only when I retrieved them from the car after getting the PCN that I spotted the incorrect reg on the second ticket.

He had told us we could buy a second ticket after the fact to cover the time in the car park if we were back later than planned so we did. We were in a bit of a rush when we returned as we had a very upset 5 month old in our arms, when purchasing the second ticket we had an issue entering the reg on the first try so cancelled (we thought) this attempt and re-entered in full the reg for the vehicle. Long story short it turns out not to have recorded the full reg on the second ticket. 

I've checked the PCN again online and the alleged contravention still remains as Unpaid Tariff Time which is incorrect as we paid for more than enough time. POPLA are saying they support the Major Keying Error 

In hindsight I'm thinking I should've just paid the £20 after the first appeal but I naively thought that they (POPLA) would rule in our favour. This country is a depressing place to live

lemnell789

Bay Sentry / Citi Park 

Decision UNSUCCESSFUL 

March 2024

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice due to parking with no valid parking session.

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. •It is not clear that parking must be paid upon exit and not arrival. •There is no small sign stating ‘please pay at the endo of visit’ and a small warning on the app which states the same. Both became apparent to them after receiving the PCN. •They made a payment upon arrival, unaware of the terms and paid the amount on the app which was £5. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided 1.Invoice. 2.App screenshot. 3.Photos of the sign. The above evidence has been considered in making my determination.

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant states they signage on site is unclear. They say they paid for parking on arrival and paid what the app required which was £5.00. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, paragraph 19.3 states: “signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including the parking charges. You must place signage containing the speci!c parking terms throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” Paragraph 19.3 also explains that signs “must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” While I note that the appellant states that they were unaware of the terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is a"orded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the photographic evidence of the signage on display, I am satis!ed that the appellant as the driver was a"orded this opportunity and it is clear to motorists that payment is required before leaving the site. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that the app may have advised that the appellant needed to pay £5 I must advise when parking on private land, it is the responsibility of all motorists to be aware of how long their vehicle has remained at the site and to make the appropriate payment for parking. Parking operators are not obligated to calculate the length of stay for motorists or to assure each motorist has purchased su#cient parking time before leaving the site. Based on the evidence provided I am satis!ed that it is clear that a payment of £7.00 was required to cover the appellant’s time on the site, which would have covered the appellant for 10 hours. I do not dispute the appellants e"orts to comply with the terms however when making a payment it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they select the relevant tari", to cover the time they have been on the site. In this case the tari"s listed are clear. A payment of £5 covers up to 3 hours on site. As the appellant exceeded this time a parking charge notice was issued correctly. Having review both the appellants grounds of appeal and the comments raised, I conclude that the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met and the operator has issued the PCN correctly, as such the appeal is refused.

PlayerZero

Operator Name: Good Value Parking Ltd
Location: Trinity Street, Birmingham, B9 4AL

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case: 
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as they overstayed.

Assessor summary of your case: 
The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that:

• The signs in the car park are not clear and prominent.
• The operator have not shown the person they are pursuing in the driver.
• There is no landowner authority as stipulated by the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section.

Assessor supporting rational for decision:
As the operator is issuing a parking charge on the basis that the driver did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park, the burden of proof rests with the operator in demonstrating that a breach took place. In this case the operator has issued the PCN as the appellant overstayed. The operator asserts that a breach of the terms and conditions occurred. In order to establish the operator’s case, I will review all the evidence presented. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was offered and properly formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. I will focus my assessment on the operator's landowner contract. The British Parking Association has a code of practice which sets the standards its operators need to comply with. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. Upon thorough review, the appellant questioned if the operator had authority to issue PCNs on the land. I would expect the operator to include a copy of the landowner contract to prove that they have authority over the car park and the grass verge where the appellant parked. Due to the absence of the landowner contract, I am unable to determine the validity of the contract for the site where the appellant parked. Without this vital information, it becomes very difficult to establish the contractual authority of the operator over the said parking location. I therefore feel that on the balance of probabilities I cannot conclude with the necessary certainty that this PCN was issued correctly, and therefore must allow this appeal. In conclusion, I do not feel that the PCN has been issued correctly for the reasons outlined above. I can see that the appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached.

marticus89

Thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6545201/horizon-parking-rejected-appeal#latest

Operator Name: Horizon Parking Ltd - EW

Decision: Unsuccessful 

Assessor Name: Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They confirm they are the keeper of the vehicle and have not provided the driver’s identity. • They refer to an old POPLA case where the appeal was allowed on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The refer to section 9 of PoFA and note that the PCN must warn the driver that if after 28 days, beginning the day after the issuance of the PCN, the driver has not been identified, the keeper will be liable for the PCN. • They do not consider that the parking operator has complied with PoFA as they have not mentioned that the 28 days begins the day after the PCN was issued. • The day after the PCN is given cannot be determined as they have not recoded the date the PCN was received. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the PoFA. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant states that the keeper cannot be held liable as the parking operator has not evidenced the date the PCN was received and therefore, they cannot determine when the PCN was received. PoFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Section 9(6) of PoFA states, “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.” On this occasion, the PCN was issued on 01/07/2024 meaning that it would be presumed to be delivered on 03/07/2024. This is within the time scale for when the PCN must be issued and the time frame for the driver to be identified. As such, I am satisfied that the parking operator has complied with PoFA in this instance and can hold the keeper liable for the PCN. The maximum stay period on this site is 20 minutes. On this occasion, the driver has remained here for 31 minutes. As this is a result of the parking contract, the driver has contravened the parking contract and this has resulted in the issuance of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

marticus89 said:

Thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6545201/horizon-parking-rejected-appeal#latest

Operator Name: Horizon Parking Ltd - EW

Decision: Unsuccessful 

Assessor Name: R A

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They confirm they are the keeper of the vehicle and have not provided the driver’s identity. • They refer to an old POPLA case where the appeal was allowed on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The refer to section 9 of PoFA and note that the PCN must warn the driver that if after 28 days, beginning the day after the issuance of the PCN, the driver has not been identified, the keeper will be liable for the PCN. • They do not consider that the parking operator has complied with PoFA as they have not mentioned that the 28 days begins the day after the PCN was issued. • The day after the PCN is given cannot be determined as they have not recoded the date the PCN was received. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the PoFA. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant states that the keeper cannot be held liable as the parking operator has not evidenced the date the PCN was received and therefore, they cannot determine when the PCN was received. PoFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Section 9(6) of PoFA states, “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.” On this occasion, the PCN was issued on 01/07/2024 meaning that it would be presumed to be delivered on 03/07/2024. This is within the time scale for when the PCN must be issued and the time frame for the driver to be identified. As such, I am satisfied that the parking operator has complied with PoFA in this instance and can hold the keeper liable for the PCN. The maximum stay period on this site is 20 minutes. On this occasion, the driver has remained here for 31 minutes. As this is a result of the parking contract, the driver has contravened the parking contract and this has resulted in the issuance of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

But the wording of the NTK was very clearly non-POFA, so POPLA are plainly wrong:

Complain to POPLA that the Assessor has erred.  Your appeal included this, which the Assessor quoted but then completely failed to address at all:

"They do not consider that the parking operator has complied with PoFA as they have not mentioned that the 28 days begins the day after the PCN was issued."

The Horizon NTK says "if after 28 days..." which is wrong by 3 days or more. This is the exact error that Premier Park used to make and POPLA had that right two years ago.

So why can't they manage it now. Complain!