We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
POPLA Decisions
Comments
-
I have yet to create a thread for this event. My first post RE: this appeal was the outcome.2
-
DecisionSuccessfulAssessor NameEllie AppletonAssessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay
Assessor summary of your caseThe 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. - There are no signs at all from the vantage point - The hedge is overgrown which hides any signs upon entering - As they did not leave the vehicle, no signs were seen - They were not the driver - They cannot upload further evidence - They utilised the car park during a lesson and used a bay with no obvious signage - They were advised by staff that motorists cannot park during the hours the store was closed - There were no signs by the bay they used The appellant has provided 1. x14 images of the car park in question After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. They further state that there is no sign upon entering the site, they have attempted to upload further evidence but has not been able to do this. The photographic evidence is dates 11 September 2024 which is irrelevant to the date of the alleged breach. They further add that they did send an appeal and evidence although the operator states this was not received. They have also provided the drivers details. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionI 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. I note the appellant has stated that they have further evidence to which they were unable to upload. POPLA have received no notification of this, so were unable to assist in this matter, therefore I must assess the case based on the evidence that has been provided. In terms of the drivers details, the appellant was afforded this opportunity during the initial appeals process, therefore I cannot take this into consideration when making my decision and consider the appellants liability for the PCN as the registered keeper at the time of the alleged breach. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay. In their appeal, the appellant stated that there were no signs to be seen on the day in question. The operator provided timestamped images of the signs on the car park, along with a site map to show were these signs can be found. From reviewing this evidence, the images of the signs are dated in September 2024. The appellant has also provided 14 images of signs at the car park in question. From comparing this evidence, were the site map shows there is a sign upon entering the site, the appellants evidence labelled 'entering carpark' shows that no such sign can be seen. They do further state in their appeal that the hedge looks overgrown and this may be the cause of the hidden sign. Due to this, I do not find it unreasonable to state this is the case, as the operators evidence shows the sign is clear and visible, this was back in 2024, and within a year, it is reasonable for the hedges to be overgrown and blocking the signage upon entry. The other images provided from the appellant show that there is a lack of signage around the car park for motorists to be able to view and read. This is also confirmed within the site map. Due to the above, I am satisfied that there is a lack of signage around the car park and it is evident that the entrance sign is no longer visible for reasonings that could be potentially caused by the hedges. Where I appreciate there is signs at this site, it is a possibility that should motorists not park by one of the signs, the terms could easily be missed. Therefore, I must allow this appeal. 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.
7 -
👆👆 Name of parking company please @juehankie, otherwise the decision lacks context. The location of the car park might also be of interest to others who fall foul of the PPC there. Well done on winning at POPLA, not so often an outcome these days. 👍Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street3 -
ParkingEyeDecisionSuccessfulAssessor NameBethany YoungAssessor summary of operator case
The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control under Byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, which was also confirmed by the Secretary of State and has been in operation since 2 May 1994. • The land falls outside of the definition of “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). • The parking operator cannot hold them liable as the keeper under PoFA. • The parking operator has not identified them as the driver. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal stating the evidence shows there was no overstay. The appellant has raised new grounds regarding the clarity of payment being required for the full duration and regarding the application of Parking Eye v Beavis ruling. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. The Byelaws document for Milton Country Park. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionI will be allowing the appeal, and my reasoning is outlined below: It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. In this case the PCN was issued for not purchasing the appropriate parking time. The appellant has explained that Milton Country Park is subject to statutory control under Byelaws made pursuant to Section 41 of the Countryside Act 1968, which was also confirmed by the Secretary of State and has been in operation since 2 May 1994. They raise that the land falls outside of the definition of “relevant land” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore they cannot be held liable for the PCN. The appellant has provided the Byelaws for Milton Country Park in support of their appeal. Having reviewed the parking operator’s evidence, I note it has not commented or addressed this aspect of the appellant’s appeal. The operator has provided no evidence to suggest that the claim made by the appellant is incorrect. I am not satisfied that the parking operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. That is not to say the site is certainly located within the Byelaws boundary, and different evidence from the operator might have resulted in a different conclusion. But I have made my decision based on the evidence presented to me for this appeal. The appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but as I have allowed the appeal, I do not feel that it is necessary to address them.
4 -
👆👆 Well done. A right old monkey off your back.Did your NtK state that they were pursuing you as the keeper under PoFA (conveniently ignoring/relying on your naivety of its implications to snatch your coin?). If so, this warrants a complaint (evidencing POPLA decision) to the DVLA.ccrt@dvla.gov.uk (and)
KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk
Send identical complaints to each.Please also make sure you engage with the Govt's Consultation. Important that everyone does their bit to ensure this out of control sector is brought to heel.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street5 -
ParkingEye
DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameJamie MacraeAssessor summary of operator caseThe parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parking without a valid permit, authorising the vehicle to park.
Assessor summary of your caseThe appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They have questioned all the signage at the site, the entrance sign is not in sufficiently large font for a driver to be able gather information whilst entering the car park, the typical approach speed is 15 MPH, according to The Single Code of Practice. • The entrance sign contains to much information, too much to be read whilst in a moving vehicle and trying to be aware of the surroundings to drive safely. • They have expressed satisfaction with the parking operator’s response to their initial appeal. • The driver had a legitimate reason to be at the site, they were visiting someone at the hotel, the driver would believe they had a right to park and was not made aware of need to register vehicle details into the tablet at the hotel, the information regarding this is in minuscule writing on the signs. • They have questioned the parking operator’s authority to manage the land/site in question. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, they have commented on the signage and landowner document provided. The appellant has provided a series of photos of the car parkas evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionThe parking operator’s signage within the site informs hotel guests must register their vehicle using the terminal at reception, and pay £12 per 24 hours, hotel visitors using the bar/café facilities, must enter their full correct vehicle registration into the terminal at the bar or café on arrival to obtain a permit for four hours, - minimum spent applies, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for 32 hours minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no validation registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event. I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. I acknowledge the appellant's dissatisfaction with the parking operator's handling of their initial appeal. However, any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code contains the principles the entrance sign must display, including whether public parking is available and if a payment is required. Its design must also comply with the standard format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park. Both parties have provided photos of the site, the parking operator has provided a map of the site, with positions of signs highlighted. I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. The terms mentioned above are clearly explained within the parking operator’s signage. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets all the requirements of the single Code of Practice and that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The appellant has stated the operator does not have the authority to operate on the land; however, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. Therefore, I can only base my decision on the evidence provided to me by the operator. 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 response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a license agreement document, confirming that the operator has sufficient authority to pursue charges on the land. The initial terms was three years, from the go live date of the 26 June 2020, which rolls for the equivalent period on the same terms unless terminated by either party, the appellant has failed to provide any evidence to suggest the either party has cancelled the agreement, it is evident the contract is a rolling contract. Further, there is signage situated around the site as cameras. If the landowner did not want the operator to manage the site, I am fairly confident they would not allow such equipment within the site. Based on the balance of probabilities, I am entirely satisfied the operator has permission from the landowner to manage the site. I understand the appellant had a legitimate reason for parking within the car park on the day. However, there is no indication from the signage that their reason for parking there would exempt them from adhering to the parking terms and conditions, which are applicable to all motorists without exception, including motorists visiting the hotel. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that parking without registering their vehicle, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By parking on site without registering their vehicle, the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist did not register their vehicle to park at the site 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.
0 -
Just to add that the site map that was used in evidence showed the wrong type of entrance sign! That was proved by my photographic evidence.1
-
Here we go again: the lads at POPLA reject appeals. The women assessors have their heads screwed on. Are they better trained?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Coupon-mad said:Here we go again: the lads at POPLA reject appeals. The women assessors have their heads screwed on. Are they better trained?0
-
juehankie said:DecisionSuccessfulAssessor NameEllie AppletonAssessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay
Assessor summary of your caseThe 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. - There are no signs at all from the vantage point - The hedge is overgrown which hides any signs upon entering - As they did not leave the vehicle, no signs were seen - They were not the driver - They cannot upload further evidence - They utilised the car park during a lesson and used a bay with no obvious signage - They were advised by staff that motorists cannot park during the hours the store was closed - There were no signs by the bay they used The appellant has provided 1. x14 images of the car park in question After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. They further state that there is no sign upon entering the site, they have attempted to upload further evidence but has not been able to do this. The photographic evidence is dates 11 September 2024 which is irrelevant to the date of the alleged breach. They further add that they did send an appeal and evidence although the operator states this was not received. They have also provided the drivers details. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decisionI 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. I note the appellant has stated that they have further evidence to which they were unable to upload. POPLA have received no notification of this, so were unable to assist in this matter, therefore I must assess the case based on the evidence that has been provided. In terms of the drivers details, the appellant was afforded this opportunity during the initial appeals process, therefore I cannot take this into consideration when making my decision and consider the appellants liability for the PCN as the registered keeper at the time of the alleged breach. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for remaining at the car park for longer than the authorised stay. In their appeal, the appellant stated that there were no signs to be seen on the day in question. The operator provided timestamped images of the signs on the car park, along with a site map to show were these signs can be found. From reviewing this evidence, the images of the signs are dated in September 2024. The appellant has also provided 14 images of signs at the car park in question. From comparing this evidence, were the site map shows there is a sign upon entering the site, the appellants evidence labelled 'entering carpark' shows that no such sign can be seen. They do further state in their appeal that the hedge looks overgrown and this may be the cause of the hidden sign. Due to this, I do not find it unreasonable to state this is the case, as the operators evidence shows the sign is clear and visible, this was back in 2024, and within a year, it is reasonable for the hedges to be overgrown and blocking the signage upon entry. The other images provided from the appellant show that there is a lack of signage around the car park for motorists to be able to view and read. This is also confirmed within the site map. Due to the above, I am satisfied that there is a lack of signage around the car park and it is evident that the entrance sign is no longer visible for reasonings that could be potentially caused by the hedges. Where I appreciate there is signs at this site, it is a possibility that should motorists not park by one of the signs, the terms could easily be missed. Therefore, I must allow this appeal. 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.
home bargains Burslem stoke on trent4
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards