POPLA Decisions

estevenin

Horizon PCN, at Tesco Kensington (Cromwell Road).

Link to the full thread, with my appeal and Popla appeal drafts : https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608305/horizon-pcn-at-tesco/

Decision
Successful

Assessor Name

Jessica Nuttall

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for exceeding the maximum stay

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. • Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • Inadequate signage and insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge. • Lack of evidence of Landowner Authority. The appellant has provided: 1. Appeal doc. 2. Sign. 3. Photo of the car park. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. • The parking operator have added picture of the signs which are supposed to be in the parking lot. • It is noted that, there is no evidence whatsoever, that the signs were there, at the time of the alleged breach of contract. Most live pictures are dated from 2021 / 2022, and no assumption can be made that those signs were there in 2025. • No visible sign at the parking's entrance has been shown, as the Operator's own evidence, page 31, which is like the evidence they have provided. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

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. In this case the operator has issued the PCN for exceeding the maximum stay period. In the appeal the appellant has explained there isn’t any signage within the charging port bays. They have also provided two images which demonstrate this. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case whilst I appreciate the parking operator has provided an image of the sign on page 24 of the case file, they have not provided me with any of the signs in situ therefore i cannot be certain the terms and conditions are clearly advertised. I acknowledge the parking operator have provided a site map on page 18 however this doesn’t demonstrate the location of the signage within the charging bays. I note they have also provided images which have been circled showing the entrance signs on page 31 of the case file. This demonstrates there is a 3 hour stay; therefore, they contradict the terms displayed inside of the site. I have not been able to conclude with the required certainty that this PCN has been issued correctly, from the evidence presented to me. I must allow the 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.

BitterButter

Euro Car Parks

Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor Name
Louise Hill

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the carpark without 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 appellant stated they have complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.

• The appellant purchased a valid pay and display ticket and staying within the time allowance.

• The appellant believes the incorrect registration is due to a fault with the payment machine.

• The appellant stated that they entered their vehicle registration and doesn’t know why this was printed incorrectly.

• The appellant stated the payment machine did not alert them that the vehicle registration was input incorrectly.

• The appellant believes that the payment machine should not have allowed payment for an incorrect registration.

The appellant has provided Photo of the appellants paid parking showing vehicle registration as M, Appel letter x2, Copy of the parking charge notice.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has re raised the same issues in their original appeal to POPLA but has also added comments that have not been raised to the operator before, so will not be taken into consideration. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not identified who the driver of the vehicle was so liability will be kept with the keeper and in this case that is the appellant. 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 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 pay at payment machine, please enter full vehicle registration via the keypad. The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN 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 a back office list to show that the appellant had paid to park but had entered P as their vehicle registration.

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 and the tariff charges for the duration of the users stay and how to pay for this.

The appellant has appealed the parking charge notice on the grounds that they believe the payment machine to be faulty as they had input their vehicle registration correctly but it was only printed as P.

The appellant has paid for the full duration of their stay. I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator which shows the back office list shows all payments made by users of the car park who have successfully entered their full vehicle registration.

If there was an issue with the payment machine I would have expected to see more keying error.

I can also confirm that there were no reports of the payment machine being faulty on the day in question and if the appellant through it was then this should have been raised to the operator.

The appellant has also stated the payment machine did not alert them that the vehicle registration was input incorrectly. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have input their full, correct vehicle registration into the payment machine.

The appellant believes that the payment machine should not have allowed payment for an incorrect registration. The payment machine will allow any vehicle registration input into it as many users have personalised registration plates and again it is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have input their full, correct vehicle registration into the payment machine.

Under Annex F3 of the single code of practice states appeals where the charge should be reduced to £20 for a period of 14 days Under Annex F3.a of the single code of practice states where the driver has paid the tariff but made a major keying error when registering their vehicle for example , letters wrong or missing, characters swapped or motorists entering the wrong car registration.

As the operator had adhered to the single code of practice and reduced the parking charge notice to £20 for a period of 14 days there is no further action to take.

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 operator has reduced the parking charge notice to £20 for a period of 14 days, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Umkomaas

Thanks for update @BitterButter (and for splitting up that dreadful POPLA wall of text to make it readable).  

You do know there is no requirement on you to pay this. Just sit tight and see what ECP do about it. Come back on a new thread should they act and you want a bit of support. They can be easily beaten with some resilience.

Coupon-mad

Certainly ignore ECP and come back when you get a DCB Legal Letter of Claim. Easy to win.

So, POPLA have said that it's the driver's fault when this happens (a lot!) at ECP car parks:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/parking-tickets-pcn-fines-carpark-b2738558.html

Not only are they letting PPCs sue people despite the machine causing the error, but just look at the rationale of her 'decision':

 I have reviewed the evidence provided by the operator which shows the back office list shows all payments made by users of the car park who have successfully entered their full vehicle registration.

Errm...How does she know, from a list of unknown VRMs whether they're full or correct VRMs or not? How can she know that say 10% of these are in fact partial or incorrect?

If there was an issue with the payment machine I would have expected to see more keying error.

But it doesn't have the words 'keying error' written next to the strangers' VRMs on this list, so how does she know what she's seeing?

I can also confirm that there were no reports of the payment machine being faulty on the day in question 

She can 'CONFIRM' that?
This is overstepping the mark into this Assessor giving evidence. She can't confirm any such thing. She wasn't at the end of the phone taking reports that day and she doesn't work for ECP. She's just believed what the operator said on this.

COMPLETE JOKE OF AN APPEALS SERVICE, RESCUED ONLY BY THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WITH POPLA IS ONLY NAIVE INCOMPETENCE, WHEREAS THE IAS IS FAR, FAR WORSE IN EVERY WAY AND ISN'T CONSIDERED IMPARTIAL, INDEPENDENT OR FIT FOR PURPOSE.

j05hr

MET Parking

Decision: MET parking withdrew

Date: August 2025

Reported: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6613887/mcdonalds-gatwick-met-parking-services/

Basis: There is no keeper liability on airport land and hire/lease car

Also includes new 14.1 instead of old paragraph 7 - As I know I couldnt find many threads with this new paragraph.

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowners), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowners) covering:
the identity of the landowners)

Coupon-mad

Placeholding this post for a very interesting couple of cases once they are decided, that I want the MHCLG to see.

They show rogue practice by the operator: Hiding of material evidence in one case and not the other, so it is obvious what the redaction is seeking to hide. 

Popcorn is out...POPLA Decision incoming this month x 2.

I expect a fudgement from POPLA because they could pick any one of 4 or 5 reasons to uphold these two appeals that I've seen. Good friends of mine, these two appellants.  These ones were amusing to assist with!

hakzz

Hi all,

Quite new to this and wanted assistance regarding an unsuccessful appeal from APCOA.

My initial appeal consisted of the statement below as usually advised on here.

“As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. Therefore, I suggest that you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so”.

For some reason, this didn’t seem to have worked. Could anyone please advise on what the next step/s should be.

Many thanks 

Umkomaas

hakzz said:

Hi all,

Quite new to this and wanted assistance regarding an unsuccessful appeal from APCOA.

My initial appeal consisted of the statement below as usually advised on here.

“As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge. Therefore, I suggest that you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so”.

For some reason, this didn’t seem to have worked. Could anyone please advise on what the next step/s should be.

Many thanks 

Please start your own new thread. This is an information thread recording POPLA decisions. More help on your own thread. 

Coupon-mad

How flipping inconsistent POPLA are on a point of law that is black and white.

They DO NOT UNDERSTAND that Airports are all under byelaws and are never relevant land!

This was posted today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627452/popla-decision-southgate-park

And yet also posted today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81629467/#Comment_81629467

"I submitted a complaint to POPLA as @Coupon-mad suggested and received a reply back from them supporting their decision (*owen wilson wow* gif goes here). The stated justification was that the contract  provided by the operator states the parking lot is relevant land, and that the operator is really really confident that it's relevant land, and just because it's a piece of land around an airport it doesn't mean it's subject to the byelaws.

Needless to say, I thanked them for their efforts in jest and completed the public consultation."


Stansted - MET Parking, of course.

34LH89

POPLA - Your appeal has been withdrawn - Appeal Verification Code

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team

Does anyone ever email the first appeal rejection email address, simply putting HAHAHAHAHAHA.

I've been tempted to on a number of occasions except I think karma would come back to bite me.