POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

34LH89 said:

POPLA - Your appeal has been withdrawn - Appeal Verification Code

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn.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 As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.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.

The name of the operator would help to give some context. Nonetheless, well done in getting them to run away!

34LH89

Umkomaas said:

34LH89 said:

POPLA - Your appeal has been withdrawn - Appeal Verification Code

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn.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 As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.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.

The name of the operator would help to give some context. Nonetheless, well done in getting them to run away!

Apologies, it was Euro Car Parks.

iZyk

Original Post: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81548696#Comment_81548696

UPDATE: POPLA APPEAL SUCCESSFUL

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

GS

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the vehicle was not parked wholly within a bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 

• The operator has failed to adhere to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). 

• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge. 

• Inadequate signage leading to failure to adhere to PoFA 2012 and breach of the BPA Code of Practice. 

• No evidence of landholder authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site on the day of the parking event. I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: I can see from the evidence provided, that the operator has not referenced that they are attempting to transfer the liability for the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the driver of the vehicle to the keeper of the vehicle using PoFA 2012, and so in its mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is based on the evidence that I have received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver.

 As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the PCN. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note that the appellant has raised further grounds for appeal in this case, however as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I have not considered them.

Umkomaas

👆👆 Premier Park Ltd. Well done on your win. 

As such, I must consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver of the vehicle is based on the evidence that I have received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver.

The above in total contrast to IAS assessors always assuming, in the absence of evidence from the keeper to the contrary, that the keeper was also the driver, spouting crap about (the criminal case of) Elliott v Loake. This is something the new assessment body must address and put straight for the future protection of keepers!

Coupon-mad

The worst thing about that one above, is the operator reportedly lying about what their NTK said.

Coupon-mad

And the worst thing about this one (below) is that CP Plus (Group Nexus) ignored the report that this vehicle had broken down (report made by the driver on the day) then they issued a PCN anyway...

...which POPLA upheld and refused to even consider that there was no 'reasonable cause' to even get the DVLA data for a known broken down car. Come ON Assessor! This was not a properly given PCN:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6628593/pcn-for-overstay-parking-due-to-broken-down-car

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining at the site longer than the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal:

 • Their car broke down in the car park.

 • They contacted the out of hours in the car park via phone and e-mail.

 • They informed them prior to the time limit expiring.

 • They were told that they would not receive a PCN if evidence was provided via e-mail.

 • The RAC turned up around 10:30 and they left around 10:50 which will be on their CCTV.

 • They intend to complete a SAR request for the parking operator’s CCTV.

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal:

1. Confirmation of the RAC Rescue Report.

2. The e-mail they sent to the parking operator. 

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 their car broke down in the car park and their contacted the parking operator regarding this.

They also contacted the RAC in order to repair their vehicle and the appellant has provided evidence of their contact with both the parking operator and the RAC.

Whilst I acknowledge this evidence, I am not satisfied that this is sufficient to cancel the PCN.

The signage on this site explains that there is a maximum allowed stay time of 2.5 hours and that a £100 PCN would be issued for any contravention of the parking contract.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. 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 c of the Code, the fee is required to be reduced if the vehicle had broken down and evidence was provided. 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.

<WHAT 'ERROR'?>

The parking operator offered the reduced charge of £20 in its letter dated 8 July 2025, as required. When the appellant brought their appeal to POPLA, they rejected this offer and the parking operator would be within its rights to seek the full PCN amount of £100.

I note the appellant has raised an issue with the parking operator and how they corresponded with them in order to avoid a PCN.

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 their cases.

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 complaints-policy. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant remained at the site for longer than 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. 

POPLA assessor: for gawd's sake don't be ridiculous! Your remit is to decide if a PCN was properly given. It wasn't!

And this is also basic contract law: there has to be agreement on the £100 charge between contracting parties: clearly there wasn't. The driver REJECTED the t&cs on the sign by sending the email that he was told by the retail park to send to exempt the car ON THE DAY OF THE EVENT, well before DVLA data was requested.

This one shows why the £20 'fake offer' MUST NOT STAND in the statutory Code.

Umkomaas

👆👆 that one has a strong whiff of an IAS style refusal. All that's really missing is an expression of 'some sympathy'! 

Pretty appalling decision!

alicebarbz

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

RB

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant believes that they were within the permitted grace period. They advise that payment was delayed by technical issues. They dispute that the appellant has the authority of the landowner. The appellant questions the adequacy of the signs on the site. The appellant disputes that the ANPR evidence is accurate and questions is compliance with data protection law. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

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 is being held liable as the keeper of the vehicle. The notice provided is fully compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). It was sent out within the required time scales and contains all of the relevant wording. In their appeal the appellant has made reference to an old code of practice which is not longer relevant. As such I am using the Single Code of Practice when considering if this PCN has been issued correctly. The signs on site advise that the driver must pay for their parking or a parking charge of £100 will be issued. The operator has provided a list which shows that the driver paid for two hours and the ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two hours and 23 minutes. The ANPR information shows when the driver entered and exited the site. This is sufficient to show how long the driver was parked. Parking starts when a driver enters the bay it starts when they enter the car park. This is confirmed by section 2.21 of the Single code of practice which advises that the consideration period allowed at the start of the parking session to give the driver a chance to review and comply with the terms and conditions forms part of the drivers parking time. This also means that any delays making payment are also included within the parking time the driver is required to pay for. If the driver could not pay for their parking on arrival, they should have removed their vehicle from the site. The list of payments shows that there was an excessive amount of time between the driver’s arrival and when they made payment. I note that the operator has provided a list showing that other users of the site were able to pay confirming that the payment system was working correctly. Section 5.2 of the Single code of practice allows the driver a grace period of 10 minutes but the evidence shows that the driver exceeded this period. The operator’s signs shown that there is a warning regarding the use of ANPR cameras and the signs advise what this will be used for. This full compliance with the requirements of data protection law and shows that the cameras are being use proportionately. Section 14 of the Single code of practice requires the operator to have a valid contract with the landowner. The operator has provided a copy of the contract it holds as such I am satisfied that the relevant agreement is in place. There is no requirement for the operator to provide a copy of the contract its equipment on site is more than sufficient to show that a valid agreement is in place as the appellant has not provided any evidence which disputes that the operator and landowner have an agreement in place. Section 3.1.3 sets out the requirements for signs. The operator has provided images showing that clear, white signs have been placed throughout the site. These signs are prominent and stand out. They clearly warn drivers regarding the requirement to pay for their parking and warn that a PCN will be issued if they do not comply. The entrance sign is also clearly visible and contains all of the required information. The appellant has not provided any evidence which casts doubt on the accuracy of the evidence provided by the operator. As the appellant has not provided any evidence, I am satisfied that the operator’s evidence is accurate despite the age of the date and time stamps. In their comments the appellant has repeated parts of their appeal and also raised new grounds of appeal which I will not be considering as they did not form part of the appellants original submission. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver failed to purchase enough parking 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.

doubledotcom

You've got to laugh at this legal reasoning:

 There is no requirement for the operator to provide a copy of the contract its equipment on site is more than sufficient to show that a valid agreement is in place as the appellant has not provided any evidence which disputes that the operator and landowner have an agreement in place.

I honestly believe that POPLA has been scraping the barrel when trying to employ new assessors with the requisite level of basic education. Any POPLA appeals I assist with, I suggest they make sure it reads like a 'Janet & John' story that is understandable by a toddler.

Coupon-mad

Yes, it has got worse than ever and how on earth does the consumer have this burden to show a negative that is outside of anything they could hold:

"the appellant has not provided any evidence which disputes that the operator and landowner have an agreement in place."