POPLA Decisions

Wolflobo1

Umkomaas said:

This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Wrong!  Only a Judge can tell you to do that!  Do not pay on the say-so of a POPLA Assessor. 

Which parking firm, we need context to get a better understanding of this?  Otherwise it's a standard POPLA rejection in a vacuum. 

This was Euro Car Parks.
for context ....
ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering the car park at 13:07
a ticket was purchased at 13:47 
for 4hours stay.
the vehicle left at 16:39

The appeal was on the grounds of grace period, reasons given such as allowing time to find a space in a busy car park, getting children safely out of the car, queueing to pay for a ticket etc.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Wolflobo1 said:

Umkomaas said:

This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Wrong!  Only a Judge can tell you to do that!  Do not pay on the say-so of a POPLA Assessor. 

Which parking firm, we need context to get a better understanding of this?  Otherwise it's a standard POPLA rejection in a vacuum. 

This was Euro Car Parks.
for context ....
ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle entering the car park at 13:07
a ticket was purchased at 13:47 
for 4hours stay.
the vehicle left at 16:39

The appeal was on the grounds of grace period, reasons given such as allowing time to find a space in a busy car park, getting children safely out of the car, queueing to pay for a ticket etc.

Thank you

You need to start your own thread so we can unpick this but I'm on holiday for a week so I'll leave it to the other regulars.

This Assessor seems to have made a clear mistake about the tariffs for 3 and 4 hours and she says you only paid for 3 hours:

Wolflobo1 said:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gayle Stanton

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was parked on the site and the pay and display permit did not cover the date and time of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal:

• The operator has not allowed a consideration or grace period and has not complied with the BPA Code of Practice. 

• The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

• There is no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

• The operator has failed to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR.

• There is no evidence of the period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements.

The appellant has reiterated and expanded upon their grounds of appeal in the comments. They add that there is no option to enter the time the vehicle entered on the payment machine.

The appellant has provided three images of their bank statement, a letter containing their full grounds of appeal and the operator’s rejection letter as evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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.

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I am therefore assessing keeper liability.

The appellant says that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024.

Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice.

The signage on the site clearly advises that motorists are required to display a valid ticket in the windscreen.

The tariffs are as follows:

Monday to Saturday…

Up to 1 hour £2.50…

Up to 2 hours £4.00…

Up to 3 hours £4.60…

Up to 4 hours £4.60.

Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge.

I have reviewed the images of the signs provided by the operator and I am satisfied that these comply with Section 19.4 of The BPA Code of Practice. There is no requirement for operators to place signs in each parking bay and there is only the requirement that the driver is afforded 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 at the site and the site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have walked or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such, was afforded this opportunity. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of landowner authority and Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the operator has provided a redacted contract and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.

The appellant has advised that they were not allowed a consideration or grace period Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park.

In this case the recommended consideration period according to Table B.1 is five minutes however as the motorist had not used the time to decide they were not entitled to an additional five minutes. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking.

In this case the recommended grace period for the site is 10 minutes and as the vehicle remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes which exceeded the recommended 10 minutes.

I note that the appellant’s ground for appeal is whether the operator has complied with the GDPR laws and refers to the ICO. Please note, that POPLA’s role is to assess if the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. POPLA is not equipped to assess the merits of whether the operator has complied with GDPR rules or lack thereof. On this basis, my decision would focus on the other aspects of the appeal in order to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked .The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if any motorist has not paid enough for parking, a PCN is issued. 

I have reviewed the appellant’s evidence and I acknowledge that the appellant had made a payment for three hours however they had remained on the site for an additional 32 minutes without making payment.

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. Operators are not obligated to calculate the length of stay for motorists or to ensure each motorist has purchased sufficient parking time before leaving the site.

After considering the evidence from both parties the driver parked on the site and did not purchase enough parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.

Please start a new thread and use MY version of this POPLA decision in your thread.

Copy & paste the above version into your own new thread because I've added bold and paragraph breaks.

We can't deal with a wall of text!

No reply here please.

Wade_Barrett

Hey guys, didn't win at POPLA. Original thread: 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6591770/c-u-p-enforcement-popla-appeal/p1

POPLA: 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.

A copy of the Parking Charge Notice has been provided and on page 2 under the section “Protection of Freedoms Act” the keeper is warned that if after 29 days from the PCN date the charge is not paid in full and the name and address of the driver is not known then the charge will be recovered from the keeper as named on the PCN. This is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is sufficient to allow the motorist to know they will be liable to pay the Parking Charge.

Information is also given of what action to take if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle.

Under section 9 schedule 5 of POFA scheduled states the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking globed. Schedule 5 states a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless Raven 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; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper that was sent on 08 January 2025 with the incident date being 05 January 2025 which means the parking charge notice was sent within 2 days, therefore being POFA compliant.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise no parking on yellow lines and no parking on roads and footpaths. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PC Famous being issued for £100.

As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the British Parking Association single code of practice. The operator has provided warden photos of the vehicle not parked in a parking bay and left on the road causing an obstruction.

The operator has also provided a site map and photos of all signage to demonstrate that clear terms and conditions are viewable to all users. The appellant has stated that the signs at this site are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the Terms and Conditions. Under 3.1.3 of the single code of practice states signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle and be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance.

From reviewing the signs provided by the operator I can see that clear and ample falconry is located around the car park and the terms and conditions are clear on the signage in bold black writing on a white background.

The appellant has also stated that there is no visible entrance sign. Under 3.1.1 of the single code of practice states an entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to the controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking Clapton permitted to terms and conditions. Again from reviewing the site map there is a clear entrance sign on site making all users aware that terms and conditions apply on site.

The appellant has stated that there is no evidence of landowner authority which is a breach of Consumer Contract regulations 2013 and Ofcom regulations for having no landowner authority. Under section 14.1 in the single code of practice states where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner covering: A. The identity of the landowner, B. A boundary map of all the land to be managed, C. Such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking, D. The permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner and the duration of Clipboard permission, E. The parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs and specific permissions and exemptions e.g. for staff, resident or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery driver and couriers, F. The means by which parking charges will be issued.

A copy of the Landowner Authority has been supplied by the operator and there is a valid contract for the operator to manage parking at this site including issuing Parking Charges for breaches of terms and conditions. This document is compliant with the British Parking Association single code of practice Section 14. This document does show that the contract started on 15/08/24. The operator would therefore be authorised to manage parking and enforcement on this car park.

The appellant has also stated that their vehicle suffered an electrical fault for which a purchase was made from Euro Car Parts making it impossible to park in a bay. While I sympathise with the appellant and the issues they were facing, unfortunately as the appellant decided to leave their vehicle not parked in a marked bay, they have breached the terms and conditions of the site and therefore the parking charge notice was issued correctly.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as the appellant failed to park in a marked bay, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

MuBa99

Operator: Met Parking

Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6588096/met-pcn-stansted-mcdonalds-help-appreciated/p1

Reason: Not relevant land (Stansted airport - McDonald's)

POPLA assessment and decision 28/05/2025

Verification Code 3860655175

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Heidi Brown

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist exceeded the stay authorised.

Assessor summary of your case

- The appellant states they were not the driver and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Therefore, they cannot be held liable as the registered keeper. They state the operator has not demonstrated that the individual they are pursuing was the driver. - The appellant states the site is not relevant land and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. - The appellant states the signage is unclear. - The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authorisation. - The appellant states that previous appeals from POPLA have been allowed. A POPLA code was provided to support this. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds. The appellant has provided maps showing the land boundaries of the site and a PDF copy of their grounds

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. - The appellant states the site is not relevant land and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. Relevant land is land, which is not under statutory control, as the railways and airport are under statutory control they are governed by byelaws. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 does not apply on land which is governed by statutory control and therefore the operator can only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. In this case, the appellant has denied driver liability and has been identified as the registered keeper. The appellant has provided maps which show the site in question is within the land boundary of Stansted airport which is under statutory control. Although the operator has advised that the site is not governed by the byelaws and provided a link to the byelaws, the evidence presented including the contract does not demonstrate that the site is not under statutory control or sufficiently rebut the appellant’s grounds. Due to this, I cannot confirm that the registered keeper can be held liable for the PCN. As such, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

herbie_likethecar

PARKING EYE FARMFOODS BLACKBURN

Decision:  Successful

Assessor Name

Matthew Woodhouse

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for returning within the no return period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds of appeal: 1. The signage is inadequate 2. Non-compliance with the grace period 3. The PCN does not comply with PoFA 4. No evidence of landowner authority In their comments, they raise three points.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

This decision relates to PCN: 708354/789597 The operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), which uses a code of practice detailing the standards that it needs to uphold as a part of its membership - the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. It is the operator’s responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the PCN correctly. In this case, the appellant has challenged the operator’s authority to manage this site, and then advised in their comments that the operator hasn’t provided a contract or witness statement to rebut that appeal point. On reviewing the operator’s evidence pack, I concur with the appellant that the operator hasn’t provided a witness statement or contract to show that they are authorised to manage, and issue PCNs for, this site. As the operator hasn’t provided evidence to rebut the appellant’s appeal, I am allowing this appeal. I note the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal, however, as I am allowing this appeal I do not need to consider those further grounds.

Many thanks to the efforts of those on here especially @Coupon-mad - it gave me confidence to follow the guides and take this through the appeal system.

Kazaa

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Gregory McGlynn

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The notice to keeper does not comply with sub paragraph 9 point 2 (e & f) so is not PoFA compliant. • The driver had permission to park there as they were attending the gym onsite. The parking operator did not offer the reduced fee of £20 when an appeal was raised. • There is no evidence the parking operator has authority to issue tickets or has landowner authority to manage the land. • The signage does not comply with BPA code of practice. The entrance sign is not visible. • There is no planning permission from Essex County Council for pole mounted ANPR cameras. It is important to note that the appellant was provided the opportunity to comment on the operator’s case file, the appellant has reiterated on their grounds within their comments. The appellant has provided an appeal document including images of the entrance of the car park, an email with CBRE and evidence of gym history attendance as evidence to support their appeal. 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 Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. Section 9 2 (e) of PoFA 2012 states: “state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper” (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;”. The PCN states does state the required information in the section titled "PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012”. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) Code practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows there is an entrance sign at the site that advises motorists it is a pay and display car park. After reviewing the parking operators’ evidence and the appellants evidence I am satisfied that this would be visible to motorists turning into the site to enter it. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows the signs at the site state “…PAY ON ARRIVAL CAR PARK…UP TO 2 HOURS £2.50…”. The parking operator has provided images of the car park showing signs are installed and a site map showing the locations of the signs at the site. After reviewing the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient signage installed throughout the site and the signs meet the requirements of section 19.3 of BPA code. The parking operator uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras at the site to record how long each vehicle stays on the site for, this is then compared to the transaction list to check each vehicle has purchased the correct amount of parking time. As the transaction list provided by the operator shows that no parking time was purchased, the parking operator issued a PCN to the appellant. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the parking operator has provided a signed contract from 22 October 2018 that renews every 5 years automatically. I am satisfied that they have shown they have landowner authority to manage the land and issue PCNs. The email the appellant has provided from CBRE also states that the contract formed when using the site is formed with Euro Car Parks which further shows that they have authority to manage the land. I note the appellant has said the parking operator does not have planning permission from Essex County Council. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. As this issue holds no impact on the appellant’s ability to comply with the terms on the date of the parking event, I cannot consider it relevant to the assessment. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the relevant planning authority directly. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Under paragraph g of the Code, the fee is required to be reduced if the vehicle would have been permitted to park, but the driver failed to enter their registration into a terminal or device. There is no information on the signs regarding this being an option at the site, however this information does not always need to be on the signs so I do not doubt that there may be an option at the gym to register for a parking permit. I note the appellant has said the parking operator failed to offer the reduced fee of £20 when they appealed, looking at the appeals the appellant made to the parking operator I can see they first appealed on 20 March. The parking operator rejected their appeal on 3 April. In their appeal to the parking operator on 20 March the appellant did not say the driver was using the gym or provide any evidence of gym usage. I can see the appellant contacted the parking operator again on the 4 April, the day after their appeal was rejected and said they provide an appeal and documentation; however, their appeal had already been rejected. If there is an option for gym users to register for a permit then the appellant needed to provide this information and evidence as the first stage of appeal, while I appreciate gum usage evidence was provided to POPLA it was not provided in their initial appeal the parking operator was unable to consider and was not required to consider if a keying error had occurred. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not pay for parking to cover their stay on the car park or have a permit authorising them to park 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.

Fruitcake

I wrote an appeal on behalf of my daughter-in-law who was not the driver of her Motability vehicle.

Hengrove Park Leisure Centre, Bristol

Interestingly, I submitted the appeal whilst Smart Parking were BPA members, but the decision was made after they had jumped ship and joined the IPC.

I threw the kitchen sink at this one simply because my DiL was extremely worried by this. Had it been my own PCN I would have just used the standard single point. Interestingly, in Smart Parking's response to the PoPLA appeal, they made untrue statements and included "evidence" that obviously came from someone else's appeal.
The assessor stated that they won't consider the appellant's comments (about the operator's untrue statements) as these are deemed to be additional points made after the initial appeal was submitted. In other words, PoPLA won't do anything about an operator making untrue statements.

Once again, lack of landowner contract wins.

Decision:-   Successful

Assessor Name:-  Kayleigh Miller

Assessor summary of operator case: - The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking without the correct authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. 

• The operator has no contract at this site to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). 

• The notice to keeper is not PoFA Compliant as it omits the word posted in addition to it not confirming on which date it was posted, only issued. 

• The notice to keeper does not specify what the breach was, only stating that they were parked without correct authorisation and not confirming what the correct authorisation would have been. 

• Inadequate signage. There are no entrance signs facing the driver other than those indicating the location of parking spaces. 

• There is no proof that the vehicle was parked. 

• Requiring a blue badge to be registered and displayed on private land is an unfair contract term as defined by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it would require a disabled person to breach the UK Government Blue Badge scheme as the scheme does not apply on private land. 

• Breach of the Equality Act (EA)2010. Indirect and direct discrimination. They were a passenger, and they use a wheel chair. The operator has not allowed reasonable adjustments. 

• Joint BPA/IPC Code of Practice breach of paragraph 4. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal as follows: 

• The operator has also failed to show proof that the Notice to Keeper was posted on the date of issue since it was passed to a third-party bulk mailing agent after issuing, resulting in a delay before being posted. 

• The operator has failed to supply a copy of a contract with or flowing from the landowner. It must therefore be assumed that no such contract exists, and my appeal should therefore be allowed. 

• The operator has failed to provide a copy of the site plan for this site 

• The operator has failed to address this point, but instead stated in their case summary, “We would like to clarify that this Parking Charge Notice was issued for insufficient paid time.” This is not the reason given for issuing the Notice to Keeper. Nowhere does the Notice to Keeper mention “insufficient paid time.” 

• The operator mentions free parking, but has failed to prove the driver was not entitled to park for free and therefore contradicts their claim that insufficient parking fee was paid. 

• The operator’s statement in their case summary, “Furthermore, in regards to the appellants comment stating “Disabled driver (but not parked in Disabled Bay since the Disabled Badge was not in their possession)” is a complete fabrication. They clearly stated in the appeals that they were not the driver, and they never made the statements, “… but not parked in a Disabled Bay,” nor “the Disabled Badge was not in their possession.” 

• The operator has failed to address their breach of the Equality Act 2010, a law that supersedes any alleged contractual terms generated by an unregulated private parking company. Irrespective of parking terms, a parking operator must comply with the law. All of the above has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has raised new grounds of appeal as follows: 

• They made no reference to pre-estimate of loss and this, plus reference to an obsolete Code of Practice from 2020 are both irrelevant. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. The comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: 

By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. 

I must therefore assess the terms and conditions of the site, any relevant code of practice, or legislation to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCOP) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. 

Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, they have specifically requested evidence that the operator provide the authority from the landowner to issue PCN’s for this site. 

I found that the operator has not rebutted this by providing evidence of the landowner agreement and for this reason I must allow the appeal as I cannot determine if the operator has the required permissions to issue PCN’s for this site. 

I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Umkomaas

I found that the operator has not rebutted this by providing evidence of the landowner agreement and for this reason I must allow the appeal as I cannot determine if the operator has the required permissions to issue PCN’s for this site. 

@Fruitcake - nice result. If Smart are having issues showing landowner authority (across so many cases, and where @ChirpyChicken's template landowner contract one-liner usually sees Smart scarpering), what about reporting POPLA result and findings to the DVLA and ask them to investigate the apparent lack of landowner authority. That could then open the door to a GDPR/DPA compensation claim. 

paly4

Yes, email their DPO and ask them to erase the old address.

For PPS (Private Parking Solutions, London), I found only one email address: info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk.

Should I send the email to this address and address it to their DPO?

Fruitcake

paly4 said:

Yes, email their DPO and ask them to erase the old address.

For PPS (Private Parking Solutions, London), I found only one email address: info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk.

Should I send the email to this address and address it to their DPO?

Yes, and put, For the attention of The Data Protection Officer in the title. You could also send it by post, sent first class from a Post Office counter, and obtain a free proof of postage certificate.
Then, in a month or so, you could send a data request. If they have done their job properly, they should reply that they don't hold any personal data.