POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

It is their responsibility.

Under KADOE they remain the data controller. reply and remind them of that and that you will report them to the DVLA and ICO if they refuse a data rectification.

MashaImishka

Hello,

So I was asked to post my POPLA appeal rejection here after asking for help in my own thread. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Tina Mahoney

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Use of a pick up/drop off zone without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The appellant says they are the registered keeper, but the operator cannot hold them liable on land under statutory control. So, the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act, (PoFA), 2012 because Manchester Airport is not ‘relevant land’. The appellant has provided no supporting documents. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterated their points and expanded on them and raised new grounds in relation to the fact that the operator did not inform them about transferring liability to the driver. POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the latter issue was not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot specifically consider it in isolation but will address PoFA in general as part of my response. All the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am refusing the appeal based on the following assessment. 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’s images of the site signs clearly detail the terms and conditions of parking in the location in question, which is Manchester Airport Terminal 3, and that it is Drop Off zone the tariffs for which are:£5.00 for a stay of up to 5 minutes, or a £6.20 payment for up to 10 minutes and £25.00 for a stay up to a maximum time of 30 minutes. It also states payment must be made by midnight on the day after the visit. The motorist is advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. Additionally, the operator has provided a site map showing there are ample signs in the car park. The time the vehicle entered the car park is recorded by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Entering at 06:44 and exiting at 06:47 on 28 June 2025. The operator also provided a system readout to demonstrate they had found no payment was made. The operator has also provided a copy of the agreement between the operator and the landlord. 

The appellant raised two main grounds of appeal. They raised issues relating to PoFA and said they did not accept liability as the keeper of the vehicle and the other issue, which also related to this, was that a charge could not be issued by the operator because of Byelaws. The appellant said the land is not ‘relevant land’, because as an airport it is land under statutory control. By registering the appeal as the keeper they can be held liable and were informed as part of the PCN that “we invite you, the registered keeper, to pay this parking charge, or provide us with the name and address of the driver”, and that this had been done under “The vehicle keeper details obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (DVLA), under Regulation 27 (1) (a)”, which is correct. 

The operator then rebutted the PoFA issue in response to the appeal as the appellant stated there was no barrier or pay machine and no restrictions or warnings on the road as they left and only saw a £25 penalty on the signs at the drop off, which related to getting out of their vehicle and importantly the appellant says, “How was I expected to pay?” This, inadvertently, allows the operator to acknowledge them as the driver. In addition, where the registered keeper is being pursued in England or Wales, PoFA 2012 sets out an expectation that for a relevant contract to exist between the driver and the operator, said person (operator) must be authorised by the owner or occupier of the land. And that then “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and the person who is: (a) The owner or occupier of the land; or (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. The operator has enclosed an agreement between the landowner and themselves, which in my view sufficiently demonstrates their right to issue parking charges on this land. 

There is no evidence provided by the appellant to show that the land is operated under Byelaws, as the agreement demonstrates it is not operated under statutory control. In summary, the regulations relating to liability have been correctly observed, as have the rights relating to a ‘relevant contract’ and ‘relevant land’ allowing the operator to issue the parking charge. To back this up the operator has also demonstrated the signs at the entrance to and on the site and when exiting are clear as to the terms and conditions in place, which require the payment of a £5.00 tariff for a drop off up to 5 minutes. In failing to pay the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site.

 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, due to Use of a pick up/drop off zone without making a valid payment, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused.

At no point did I directly say I was the driver. In the original appeal (before I found the template on this site) all I said was 'There were no clear signs up and no barrier. So how was I expected to pay?' which is the information given to me by the driver at the time. Is it legal for them to inadvertently make the assumption I was the driver when I appealed via APCOA originally solely as the keeper of the driver? Ironically, I was not even driving the car which is why I did appeal as the keeper and not the driver. 

I am not quite sure what the point of commenting on the counter-arguments is when it doesn't get taken into account anyway? 

As I've understood from the responses to my post asking for advice, I should now just ignore APCOA and the debt recovery agency and that it's highly unlikely this would get taken to court. However, if in the very unlikely case it did, would I have any grounds to fight this? 

MashaImishka

MashaImishka said:

Hello,

So I was asked to post my POPLA appeal rejection here after asking for help in my own thread. 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Tina Mahoney

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Use of a pick up/drop off zone without making a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below. • The appellant says they are the registered keeper, but the operator cannot hold them liable on land under statutory control. So, the operator cannot use the Protection of Freedoms Act, (PoFA), 2012 because Manchester Airport is not ‘relevant land’. The appellant has provided no supporting documents. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterated their points and expanded on them and raised new grounds in relation to the fact that the operator did not inform them about transferring liability to the driver. POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. Instead, the comment stage is to be used to expand on the initial grounds of appeal after seeing the evidence pack from the operator. As the latter issue was not raised in the initial appeal, I cannot specifically consider it in isolation but will address PoFA in general as part of my response. All the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I am refusing the appeal based on the following assessment. 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’s images of the site signs clearly detail the terms and conditions of parking in the location in question, which is Manchester Airport Terminal 3, and that it is Drop Off zone the tariffs for which are:£5.00 for a stay of up to 5 minutes, or a £6.20 payment for up to 10 minutes and £25.00 for a stay up to a maximum time of 30 minutes. It also states payment must be made by midnight on the day after the visit. The motorist is advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. Additionally, the operator has provided a site map showing there are ample signs in the car park. The time the vehicle entered the car park is recorded by the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Entering at 06:44 and exiting at 06:47 on 28 June 2025. The operator also provided a system readout to demonstrate they had found no payment was made. The operator has also provided a copy of the agreement between the operator and the landlord. 

The appellant raised two main grounds of appeal. They raised issues relating to PoFA and said they did not accept liability as the keeper of the vehicle and the other issue, which also related to this, was that a charge could not be issued by the operator because of Byelaws. The appellant said the land is not ‘relevant land’, because as an airport it is land under statutory control. By registering the appeal as the keeper they can be held liable and were informed as part of the PCN that “we invite you, the registered keeper, to pay this parking charge, or provide us with the name and address of the driver”, and that this had been done under “The vehicle keeper details obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (DVLA), under Regulation 27 (1) (a)”, which is correct. 

The operator then rebutted the PoFA issue in response to the appeal as the appellant stated there was no barrier or pay machine and no restrictions or warnings on the road as they left and only saw a £25 penalty on the signs at the drop off, which related to getting out of their vehicle and importantly the appellant says, “How was I expected to pay?” This, inadvertently, allows the operator to acknowledge them as the driver. In addition, where the registered keeper is being pursued in England or Wales, PoFA 2012 sets out an expectation that for a relevant contract to exist between the driver and the operator, said person (operator) must be authorised by the owner or occupier of the land. And that then “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and the person who is: (a) The owner or occupier of the land; or (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. The operator has enclosed an agreement between the landowner and themselves, which in my view sufficiently demonstrates their right to issue parking charges on this land. 

There is no evidence provided by the appellant to show that the land is operated under Byelaws, as the agreement demonstrates it is not operated under statutory control. In summary, the regulations relating to liability have been correctly observed, as have the rights relating to a ‘relevant contract’ and ‘relevant land’ allowing the operator to issue the parking charge. To back this up the operator has also demonstrated the signs at the entrance to and on the site and when exiting are clear as to the terms and conditions in place, which require the payment of a £5.00 tariff for a drop off up to 5 minutes. In failing to pay the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site.

 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, due to Use of a pick up/drop off zone without making a valid payment, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused.

At no point did I directly say I was the driver. In the original appeal (before I found the template on this site) all I said was 'There were no clear signs up and no barrier. So how was I expected to pay?' which is the information given to me by the driver at the time. Is it legal for them to inadvertently make the assumption I was the driver when I appealed via APCOA originally solely as the keeper of the driver? Ironically, I was not even driving the car which is why I did appeal as the keeper and not the driver. 

I am not quite sure what the point of commenting on the counter-arguments is when it doesn't get taken into account anyway? 

As I've understood from the responses to my post asking for advice, I should now just ignore APCOA and the debt recovery agency and that it's highly unlikely this would get taken to court. However, if in the very unlikely case it did, would I have any grounds to fight this? 

Sorry, forgot to post my original thread. 
Here it is: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6631675/manchester-airport-fine-appeal-refused#latest

Coupon-mad

"the appellant stated there was no barrier or pay machine and no restrictions or warnings on the road as they left and only saw a £25 penalty on the signs at the drop off, which related to getting out of their vehicle and importantly the appellant says, “How was I expected to pay?” This, inadvertently, allows the operator to acknowledge them as the driver."

Whoops! Sadly, that's why you lost.

Although this new assessor does sound somewhat clueless about keeper liability.

Umkomaas

As I've understood from the responses to my post asking for advice, I should now just ignore APCOA and the debt recovery agency and that it's highly unlikely this would get taken to court. However, if in the very unlikely case it did, would I have any grounds to fight this? 

Yes, ignore APCOA, yes, ignore DRAs, yes, highly unlikely this will get taken to court.  Scrub that last bit, APCOA have never, ever, taken anyone to court, so they will not be starting with you. 

Get on with your life, laugh at any feeble attempt to frighten you into paying!

retepetsir

I received a parking notice back in June for a free car park that I've used many times, but now seems to be managed by a new operator, Euro Car Parks, and with a maximum parking time of 4 hours. 

This is at a leisure park in the South East with cinema, etc. The driver of my car at the time was not aware of the changes and was in the car park for around 4.5 hours after a trip to the cinema and a meal out. It sounds like a lot of people have received notices in the last few months. No response from the leisure park management and my initial appeal was rejected by ECP, so I went via POPLA. Included proof of purchase, some of the template suggestions and also photos showing notices that parking machines were available to register longer stays, but no machines were available or installed. The signage also had an incorrect name for the location of the site. 

I received a decision today which is 28 days after my information and evidence was sent and I assume the deadline for the operator to submit their evidence. ECP have withdrawn the appeal, I assume because they realised how many mistakes they had made. I really hope others do not pay the charges if they receive a notice. 

'Dear Mr xxxx, The operator has contacted us and told us they have withdrawn your appeal. If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge'. POPLA's involvement has now ended and you do not need to take further action.'

Parking Company: Euro Car Parks

Decision: Appeal has been withdrawn by operator 

Withdrawal Reason: Blank

Thank you to everyone on this forum for the guidance, templates and help. I used a combination of people's challenges to submit my appeal. 

piggypower

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Claire Brackenridge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for there being no record of a payment received for staying longer than the free period.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site and our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The signage in place at a site sets out the terms and conditions. The signage at this site states that up to 2 hours parking is free and then charges apply. It also states if the terms and conditions are breached a PCN for £100 can be issued. The parking operator has provided details from its system to show the appellants vehicle was on site for 4 hours and 12 minutes and they did not pay for their stay. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said the operator has not complied with POFA due to omitting when the PCN was posted. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, I am satisfied from the evidence provided, that the appellant identified themselves as the driver at the time in question when they raised their initial appeal with the operator. Therefore, POFA has not been used and is not applicable to this appeal. 

I also acknowledge the appellant has said the signs in this car park are not lit appropriately at nighttime, nor are they clear or legible from all parking spaces and so full terms cannot be read from a car before parking They have said the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states there is a 'requirement for transparency'. The appellant has referred to the 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' case and said this was about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was not deemed bound by them. The appellant has also said that in this case, there was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge'. They have said the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. 

After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has said the photos of the signage which CP Plus have provided omit to show what the signs look like at the time the PCN was issued, when it was dark. They have said the operator has not provided any evidence of ambient or direct lighting to illuminate these signs as you enter the services. The appellant has also said CP Plus suggest that headlights would illuminate these signs, however, no dipped headlights which are adjusted correctly would illuminate a sign nine feet up. They have also said the entrance sign, is obstructed by other signage, principally the blue "SERVICES" sign and the brown "TRAVELODGE" signpost, and with this being obstructed, it appears it is simply a £10 charge if parked over a period of time. 

When parking on private land, the parking contract is between the motorist and the operator through the terms on its signs. If a motorist remains parked on site, they accept the contract on offer and also the consequence of not complying with this. The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. The signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where parked, they simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2 states parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land, and Section 19.3 says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms within the site. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.6 of the Single Code of Practice states that signs should be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions, including during dusk and in the dark if the land is accessible at those times. The signs must be installed at a height that takes into account where the signs will be viewed from, and whether vehicle headlights will illuminate the signs in the dark. 

POPLA uses the information and evidence presented at the time of the assessment is made and we accept all evidence from both parties in good faith, and unless proven otherwise, we assume it to be correct. In this case, the parking operator has provided a site map and images of the signage situated throughout the site, including at the site entrance. I am satisfied that the entrance sign is sufficient to make motorists aware they are entering private land and parking restrictions apply and after passing this sign when entering the site, it was the appellants responsibility to seek out the signage and approach this to read the terms and conditions that applied. The signs are not meant to be read from inside a vehicle. 

The parking operator’s evidence includes photographs of the site and signage and while these may not have been taken when it was dark, these show there are multiple lighting poles present on site and some of the photographs show signs attached to lighting poles. Due to this and this site being a service station, and the appellant not providing any evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied there would sufficient indirect lighting on site to render the signage visible when dark. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied that this signage was on site at the time in question, that it was visible when dark and that the appellant was afforded the opportunity to read this. I am also satisfied that the terms are clear that motorists should pay for their parking if they are on site for more than 2 hours, complying with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requirement for transparency. 

I note the appellant has said here is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself due to poor positioning, lighting and the minuscule font size of the sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance. The entrance sign is not required to display the terms and conditions or the PCN amount. This is there to make motorists aware they are entering private land and parking restrictions apply. Section 19.4 of the BPA Code states that if parking operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the signs must give adequate notice of the charge.

 Furthermore, the Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that the parking charge amount must be brought to the motorist’s attention within the signage. I am satisfied that the signage on site complies with both the BPA Code Section 19.4 and Parking Eye v Beavis, as the charge is brought to the attention of motorists by being displayed in bold, black digits on a white background and this is in one of the larger font sizes used on the signs. I appreciate the appellant has said this is not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. However, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable framework for any challenge to proportionality. The Supreme Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. 

Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The Court’s full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. 

I acknowledge the appellant has said that there is no evidence of landowner authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice, and they have detailed the information a contract should contain. After viewing the parking operator’s case file, the appellant has gone on to say that CP Plus have provided witness statements as evidence of landowner authority and both statements are dated 2023 and the PCN was issued in summer of 2025, therefore this is not evidence of a legal contract in place with the landowner at the time the PCN was issued. 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. 

While this states written confirmation must be obtained, it does not state that this needs to be provided as evidence. However, in this case, on page 46 of their case file, the parking operator has provided a copy of a witness statement that states the operator has the landowner’s authority to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at this site, including issuing PCNs where vehicles are parked in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking. This also states that this contract runs from 1 July 2020 until 31 December 2026, and as this is a witness statement, it is not required to contain all of the information a contract would. 

I am satisfied this and the signage and camera equipment being on site is sufficient to show the operator had the landowner’s authority at the time in question. If authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage and equipment at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. 

I also acknowledge the appellant has said the PCN states the vehicle remained at this site longer than the “allowed free parking period” yet it does not state what this period was, what the grace period is and how long the vehicle in question overstayed. The PCN is not required to contain this information. I note the appellant has also said there is no proof the vehicle in question was at any time parked and they put it to the operator to provide evidence the vehicle was parked longer than the permitted “free parking period.” The site in question is automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by a camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. The motorist’s length of stay is then calculated from the point of entry to exit, and this is checked to determine if they complied with the terms and conditions. 

In this case, the operator’s cameras have captured the appellants vehicle entering the site at 02:18 and exiting at 06:30 on the day in question. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate, and the appellants vehicle was on site for the 4 hours, and 12 minutes stated by the operator. In this case, as the appellant did not pay for their stay, they were not authorised to park on site for any longer than they free 2 hours allowed. The appellant had reiterated their grounds of appeal, after viewing the parking operator’s case file, as these grounds have been addressed above, I will not comment on them further. 

Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. This includes ensuring a valid payment has been made for their stay. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant did not pay for their stay, and therefore they 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. Any questions relating to payment of the charge should be directed to the operator.

---

original thread;

Group Nexus / CP Plus Ltd PCN ...already appealed — MoneySavingExpert Forum

---

I am unsure as to what to do next. 

I guess, await court hearing or pay the fine. It baffles me that this is just such a greedy, legally bizarre, terrifyingly complicated battlefield... for just stopping to rest at 2am and oversleeping. 

Coupon-mad

Please edit that and add ten paragraph breaks. We can't read the decision! Yes, we know that's how it copies and pastes from POPLA but (like all the other decisions posted here) please put in paragraphs, so we can read it.

You already know from the NEWBIES thread and/or the MSE Guide to Private Parking Tickets, to ignore POPLA and that this isn't a fine.

  

piggypower

Coupon-mad said:

Please edit that and add ten paragraph breaks. We can't read the decision! Yes, we know that's how it copies and pastes from POPLA but (like all the other decisions posted here) please put in paragraphs, so we can read it.

You already know from the NEWBIES thread and/or the MSE Guide to Private Parking Tickets, to ignore POPLA and that this isn't a fine.

  

apologies. Done a number of breaks where it seems most beneficial. I will read the newbies thread again, its been a few weeks since I did. thanks for the reply. 

Umkomaas

Looks very much like a bot generated response from POPLA. Still can't spell rationale though! 🤦