POPLA Decisions

DE_612183

Coupon-mad said:

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.

Did the RAC recovery vehicle also get a PCN for staying longer than the grace period I wonder?

Coupon-mad

POPLA decision here re MET at Stansted:

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

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name

Stuart L

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to parking without payment or authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

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

 • Met parking are relying on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable, but Southgate Park is within the boundaries of Stansted airport and is not relevant land.

 • The operator cannot hold the keeper liable.

 • The appellant has raised many more grounds of appeal. The appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal after reviewing the operators evidence pack. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal:

 • Images of signs and a site map showing the boundaries of Stansted airport.

The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I find in favour of the appellant and allow this appeal, below I will explain my reasoning.

 When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly.

I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of images of signs and a site map showing the boundaries of Stansted airport. I note the appellant has not confirmed they were the driver at the time of the breach and in order to hold the keeper liable, the operator must transfer liability using PoFA. The appellant’s case is that Southgate park is covered by Byelaws and is not relevant land, making impossible for the operator to transfer liability to them as the keeper.

I note the evidence provided by the appellant clearly shows that Southgate Park is within the boundaries of the airport and is therefore covered by Byelaws.

The operator has stated that it is relevant land, and they can therefore transfer liability to the driver. Despite the operator stating this and providing a landowner agreement claiming it is relevant land, they have provided no site map to rebut the appellants claims or show the site does not sit within the airport boundaries.

As the appellant has provided evidence to show Southgate Park is within the boundaries of Stansted Airport and the operator has failed to rebut this, I cannot conclude that they can transfer liability and hold the keeper liable for the charge.

As such, I must allow the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other points relating to the parking charge notice, but as I have allowed the appeal it will have no bearing on the case.

blindedmole

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Penalty Charge as the driver failed to park within an authorised marked parking bay.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that the signs within the car park are unclear. They believed that where they had parked was a valid parking bay with faded markings. They advise that there were no other designated bays which they could have used. They explain that the operator’s photos show another vehicle causing an obstruction. The appellant has made reference to a different POPLA appeal. They advise that they did not cause an obstruction. The appellant has provided two photos of the site. 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 penalty correctly and if the driver has complied with the rules of the car park. This penalty has been issued for a breach of the Railway Byelaws. The byelaws make the owner of a vehicle responsible for the charge, who the operator can assume is the registered keeper. The operator’s signs are required to comply with the British Parking Association code of practice. Section 19.3 explains that signs should be placed throughout the site but there is no requirement for the signs to be visible from where the appellants vehicle was parked. The only requirement is that there is a sufficient number of signs to have brough the rules for parking to the attention of the driver. The operator has provided photos show that prominent white signs have been placed throughout the site to bring the rules to the attention of the driver. There are also warning signs advising that parking along the fences is not permitted as drivers must park within a bay. The signs on site require drivers to park within a marked parking bay or a penalty of £100 will be issued. Both the operator and appellant showing that the driver was not parked within a marked parking bay. There are no faded markings surrounding where the driver was parked this is clearly shown by the images the appellant has provided. While there are small marks these in no way constitute a bay as they are a small line behind the vehicle and the marking in front of the vehicle appears to relate to a completely different bay. I also note that the appellant has blocked another vehicle so was causing an obstruction. There is no requirement for the operator to use hatched or yellow markings in a location such as this as the signs make it clear that parking is not permitted. If there were no free parking bays available, the driver should have removed their vehicle from the car park and found a different place to park. This is the case even if another vehicle is obstructing a bay. POPLA is unable to reference a different appeal when considering if this PCN was correctly issued. A previous appeal to either the operator or POPLA cannot set a president for a later appeal. The driver failed to park within a marked bay as such I must conclude that the penalty has been issued correctly and reject the appeal.

To summarise the appeal 

1) Faded white line to rear of vehicle and smaller one to the front. 

2) No signs on fence next to where car was parked. Small signs (A5 sized) in other areas. These were only noticed when I returned to scope the appeal. 

I'm confused by the railway byelaw threat. If this was anywhere else I'd have ignored all correspondence from apcoa. 

Umkomaas

If this was anywhere else I'd have ignored all correspondence from apcoa. 

You continue to ignore, this will time out after 6 months. 

A previous appeal to either the operator or POPLA cannot set a president for a later appeal.

What's Don Trump got to do with this. Oh my! 🤦

blindedmole

Umkomaas said:

If this was anywhere else I'd have ignored all correspondence from apcoa. 

You continue to ignore, this will time out after 6 months. 

A previous appeal to either the operator or POPLA cannot set a president for a later appeal.

What's Don Trump got to do with this. Oh my! 🤦

I missed that 😂

So ignore going forward.
The railway byleaw bit was what got me spooked in the first place. 

Umkomaas

blindedmole said:

Umkomaas said:

If this was anywhere else I'd have ignored all correspondence from apcoa. 

You continue to ignore, this will time out after 6 months. 

A previous appeal to either the operator or POPLA cannot set a president for a later appeal.

What's Don Trump got to do with this. Oh my! 🤦

I missed that 😂

So ignore going forward.
The railway byleaw bit was what got me spooked in the first place. 

Railway byelaw penalties are all but impossible for APCOA to progress. They don't even progress much easier, standard, PCNs. Sleep easy.

blindedmole

Umkomaas said:

blindedmole said:

Umkomaas said:

If this was anywhere else I'd have ignored all correspondence from apcoa. 

You continue to ignore, this will time out after 6 months. 

A previous appeal to either the operator or POPLA cannot set a president for a later appeal.

What's Don Trump got to do with this. Oh my! 🤦

I missed that 😂

So ignore going forward.
The railway byleaw bit was what got me spooked in the first place. 

Railway byelaw penalties are all but impossible for APCOA to progress. They don't even progress much easier, standard, PCNs. Sleep easy.

Thank you Umkomaas. I'll look forward to the scrap paper soon to be delivered over the coming months.

doubledotcom

POPLA is not even a TOC-approved Independent Appeals Body (IAB). POPLA has no jurisdiction to consider appeals of alleged byelaw breaches, which are criminal matters.

The correct procedure should have been an appeal to a TOC-approved IAB and then, if the TOC wished to pursue it, for the TOC to lay an information before a magistrates’ court and issue a Single Justice Procedure (SJP) notice, which the keeper could then challenge. That would mean a TOC prosecution with a requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt — including proving who was in charge of the vehicle at the material time. Where the driver is not identified and there is no reliable evidence establishing who committed the alleged offence, meeting that standard is, in practice, almost impossible.

Hey ho… the farce goes on. Sleep easy in the knowledge that nothing will ever come of this. APCOA cannot prosecute, and even if the TOC wanted to (which they don’t), APCOA would not see a penny of any fine that might be imposed — fines are paid to the public purse — and that’s assuming they could prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which, as I’ve said, is almost impossible in these cases.

AliceBanned

UKPC requested my appeal be withdrawn by Popla. Terrible signage, dark, poorly delineated spaces in residential parking. 

Was a bit horrified to get a notice tbh and neighbours got them for no reason!

I even said I was driving (by mistake)!😅

paly4

Fruitcake said:

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.

I received a message from PPS London in response to my request to erase my old address and update their system with my current address:
"As the fine has escalated to debt recovery, please get in touch with them regarding the change of address or any other information you require."

I thought it was their responsibility to update their records once I informed them. Should I ask them to confirm in writing that they are refusing to do so?