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?