POPLA Decisions

Smii

Newquay Airport / Initial Parking (Cornwall Council)

Decision: Successful

Initial Parking withdrew before the POPLA appeal took place, and cancelled the PCN. Details in the thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6635246/newquay-airport-parking-popla-appeal/p1
Appealed on the grounds that the NTK was not POFA compliant because the carpark is on airport land and is therefore not relevant land.

broomy23

POPLA are not interested in the high court injunction cited by MET in relation to Stansted Airport. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Natalie Matthews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as they never paid for parking or remained for longer than authorised. 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account of events. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds into the following points and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • The car park falls within the Stansted Airport Bylaws Boundary Airports Act 1986 and is governed by airport byelaws and is not relevant land and does not fall under Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. • The appellant reiterated their version of events in the motorist’s comments section and added that the evidence the operator have included is of a court injunction, with the map where protestors are not permitted to protest. This is not an accurate reflection of the airport boundary map. The appellant included photographic evidence of the airport boundary (times three) in support of their appeal. I have considered this in my decision. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will therefore be assessing the appellant’s liability as the keeper of the vehicle. I have allowed the PCN for the following reason: By issuing the appellant with a PCN, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. The burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the driver was not authorised to park on site. After very careful consideration of the appellant's grounds of appeal and photographic evidence and the operator's case file I can see the appellant states they are the registered keeper and will not divulge who the driver was on the date in question. The appellant states the car park is not relevant land and falls under the boundary for Stanstead Airport which means POFA is not applicable. POFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. However, POFA does not apply to land that is not relevant, like airports. The appellant included a copy of the site map from the Stanstead website, which proves Stanstead Airport boundary includes Southgate car park. However, the operator have included a map which has been drawn up due to a High Court injunction preventing protestors from protesting on airport land. In this map, Southgate car park is not included in the boundary for Stanstead Airport. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I can see that the High Court injunction map is the area where protestors are not permitted to protest, and this does not necessarily mean that is the Stanstead Boundary. In contrast the appellant's photographic evidence of the Stanstead boundary is taken directly from the Stanstead Airport website, and it would be safe to say, on the balance of probabilities that the evidence available on Stanstead Airport’s own website would be considered the more accurate site boundary. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Southgate car park falls on relevant land, and as such, the liability can’t be transferred to the registered keeper. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I feel this PCN was issued incorrectly. In conclusion, I can see that the appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but I do not feel that these need to be reviewed based on the outcome reached. Overall, I am not satisfied that the charge has been issued correctly, therefore I must allow this appeal.

Le_Kirk

broomy23 said:

POPLA are not interested in the high court injection cited by MET in relation to Stansted Airport. 

Well done on the win but should that be injunction?  Mind you wouldn't mind if PPCs had an injection!

Umkomaas

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I can see that the High Court injunction map is the area where protestors are not permitted to protest, and this does not necessarily mean that is the Stanstead Boundary. In contrast the appellant's photographic evidence of the Stanstead boundary is taken directly from the Stanstead Airport website, and it would be safe to say, on the balance of probabilities that the evidence available on Stanstead Airport’s own website would be considered the more accurate site boundary. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Southgate car park falls on relevant land, and as such, the liability can’t be transferred to the registered keeper. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities I feel this PCN was issued incorrectly.

Haha. Well done Assessor Natalie in not being hoodwinked by MET bullshot!

Fruitcake

Angel Place car park, Bridgwater

Original thread here. Here we go again — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Operator: UKPA

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor: - Barry Arledge


Assessor summary of the case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - The registered keeper can not be held liable • The parking operator does not have the authority of the landowner to manage and enforce parking charges on this land • Signage is inadequate and confusing • The operator has not demonstrated that a parking payment was processed/received after the Notice to Keeper was sent – card payment can take up to 10 days • The driver of the vehicle has an autopay account After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. • Word Document with images of the operator’s signage • Screenshot of terms and conditions published by Hozah for those using an autopay account The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The driver has not been identified; therefore, I must see whether the operator has complied with the relevant sections of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 for them to transfer liability to the keeper. 

I have reviewed the PCN, and I am satisfied all sections have been met therefore, I am considering Fruitcake's liability as the keeper of the vehicle. 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. 

I will be assessing the grounds of appeal using the new Single Code of Practice which replaced the 2024 British Parking Association (BPA) Code practice and relates to all PCN’s issued on or after 1 October 2024. However, the grounds of appeal relating to signage at the site will be assessed using the 2024 BPA Code of Practice Version 9 as this still currently applies. 

The time and date stamped fixed camera images demonstrate to me that the appellant parked on the operator’s site for a duration of 1 hour 4 minutes and 6 seconds between 14:40:34 and 15:44:40. The PCN includes images of the appellant vehicle entering and exiting the controlled parking area with the cameras images and timings inserted. As this is an ANPR controlled car par, the period of parking is calculated from the point of entry to the point of exit.

The terms of use for this car park explains payment of a tariff is required to authorise varying durations of parking. The term of use and tariff board explains that a tariff of £1.20 is payable to authorise stays of up to 1 hour and a tariff of £1.50 payable for stays of up to 2 hours. Payment must be made before the vehicle leaves the site. An autopay process is also offered in addition to ‘one-time payments’. Parking in breach of the terms will result in a PCN for £100. 

The operator has evidenced signage in situ that includes instructions how to use autopay. It is the motorist’s own responsibility to set up an account with Hozah which in turn ensures payment for that day and future visits can be taken. The operator notes that the appellant says the driver had an autopay account, they do not dispute this, but in rebuttal say the account holder had not linked a vehicle to their account. Without a vehicle linked, the autopay process would not work. The appellant has not provided any evidence to show a valid autopay account with vehicle was set up on this day, and no evidence from Hozah or the card issuer to indicate any payment had been made to authorise parking.

The parking operator has submitted data from the site payment report. They were alerted of the appellant’s appeal on the 20th of September 2025 and sent payment report data on the 23rd of September 2025. There is no record of any payment being made to authorise a period of parking by the appellant’s vehicle on the 25th of July 2025. I conclude the operator has made the more compelling case that no valid payment was made to authorise parking by this vehicle on the day of this parking event. 

The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information, was issued within required timescales, and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. 

The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with in respect of signage. Section19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. 

In this case the parking operator’s evidence includes site plans with sign location markers plus numerous photographs of the site and the signage within it that is used to communicate the terms of use. I am satisfied signage is present, placed conspicuously and used wording that is clear and understandable. I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements set out in this part of the code. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) and must follow the associated Code of Practice. 

Clause 14 of the relevant version of the Code says that, assuming they don’t own car parks, parking operators must have the authority of landowners to manage parking on them and issue charges for breaking any terms. The parking operator states in its response to the appeal that it has relevant authority to manage the car park, and it’s provided evidence to show it’s installed numerous signs as well as an automatic camera system on the car park. 

On balance, I’m satisfied it’s more likely than not that the operator had authority to manage the car park on the date in question. The appellant has provided no evidence that casts doubt on this conclusion. After considering the evidence from both parties, I conclude the driver had not made a valid one-ff or autopay payment to authorise their period of parking this day. 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.

The assessor has failed to address my specific appeal points, which were,

1) The NTK is non PoPFA compliant because: -

a) It fails to invite the keeper to pay the charge or pass the details to the driver. (It says the keeper should tell us the drive's name and current address. Us of the word, would denotes an obligation or requirement. It is not an invitation that can either be accepted or declined. It does not give an option.)

b) It does not state the period of parking.

2) Not the landowner

3) No standing to issue charges in their own name.

4) The operator failed to show payment was not made after the date of the alleged event but within the ten day processing period stated by Hozah on their website.

The operator sent me their evidence, including alleged parking contracts, which I countered in my rebuttal.

The operator did not address my points 1 and 2, so I stated that the appeal should be allowed, but the assessor decided that the NTK was compliant even though UKPA never addressed the issues I raised. So much for evidence based decisions.

In addition, for point 2 (no landowner authority), I stated

UKPA is not the landowner and has no standing to issue charges in its own name.

The operator has provided a copy of a parking services contract dated 2023 that includes three company names: -

Hozah Ltd, UKPA Ltd, and S & K Properties Ltd.

According to Companies House, companies named S & K Properties Ltd and S & K Properties Limited are both dissolved, and ceased to operate before the above mention parking service contract was formed.

In addition, no company with company number N1690531 has ever been registered with Companies House. 

The landowner changed in 2024.

I then put the operator to strict proof they had a contract with S & K ... and that it had a contract with the landowner at the material time.

It's winter, and I need some firelighters and paper logs for my wood burner. My local court is within walking distance. I can come out to play any time UKPA and their agents care to.

doubledotcom

It's only POPLA. As you have found out, the quality of assessment leaves much to be desired. A moronic and intellectually malnourished POPLA assessor if not worth getting all get up about. Their decision is not binding on you and you DO NOT pay the charge.

You can waste some time making a formal complaint to POPLA but they will never change the decision, even if the bleedin' obvious is staring them in the face. However, it is often worth it, just for the record, to prove their incompetence snd when they are replaced eventually, it will not be a moment too soon.

DE_612183

Once again as @Coupon-mad has stated previously - Female reviewer = common sense, Male reviewer = DH.

FollyT

I have also started a thread about this PCN at 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6645132/total-parking-solutions-pcn-appeal-rejected-at-popla-confused-about-ntk#latest

POPLA assessment and decision

08/12/2025

Verication Code:

8412665011
PARKING CHARGE NUMBER: HT3766031 

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Lyndsey Howgate

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being parked in a hatched

area.

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 advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver.

•The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served.

•The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver.

•The appellant advises no evidence of

landowner authority.

•The appellant advises the signs were not prominent, clear or legible.

The appellant has provided: •A copy of their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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 registered keeper of the vehicle has raised the appeal; I will be referring to them as the appellant throughout my report.

The parking operator has provided a copy of the car park site map indicating where signage is located within the car park and time dated photographs of the signage within the

car park which advises no parking on yellow lines, white lines, hatched lines or approaches to to crossing/junction access, pay on exit, taris available, payment methods available and failure to comply will result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also supplied images obtained from the parking attendant showing the vehicle parked within a hatched area.

The appellant advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver. The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served. The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver. The government created the Protection of

Freedoms Act 2012 to allow a parking operator to hold the keeper of a vehicle liable for a PCN if it

does not know who the driver is. It also gives the keeper of a vehicle the chance to name the driver if they do not want to be held liable for the PCN. A keeper of a vehicle is a person who is registered with the DVLA as owning the vehicle. I note in this instance, the PCN was axed to the vehicle on the day it was issued. The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being

obtained from the DVLA conrming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satised that the PCN was axed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant advises no evidence of landowner authority. On many car parks, a parking operator acts on behalf of a landowner. I have reviewed a copy of a witness statement dated 11 March 2016, which conrms that the parking operator does have authority to manage the car park, which would include collecting payment for any breaches of terms and conditions of use of the private land. The appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the parking operator does not have the landowner’s authority to manage the land and therefore I must be satised that the parking operator does have the authority to issue PCN’s to motorist who breach any terms and conditions of use of private land/car park.

The appellant advises the signs were

not prominent, clear or legible. Due to the appellants grounds of appeal, I have reviewed this sectors

Code of Practice which was jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the

International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code

of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice

(The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of The Code

states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.3 of The Code contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs

must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and

contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I have reviewed the car park site map indicating where signage is located and photographs of signage within the area provided by the parking operator and I am satised that there is ample, clear signage throughout to advise all motorist of the terms and conditions of use of the private land. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge iaccordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to being parked in a hatched area, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused

doubledotcom

If you ever need evidence that POPLA assessors are, in general, utter morons and intellectually malnourished, you only have to read this bit:

The government created the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to allow a parking operator to hold the keeper of a vehicle liable for a PCN if it does not know who the driver is. It also gives the keeper of a vehicle the chance to name the driver if they do not want to be held liable for the PCN.

A keeper of a vehicle is a person who is registered with the DVLA as owning the vehicle. I note in this instance, the PCN was axed [sic?] to the vehicle on the day it was issued. The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being obtained from the DVLA conrming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satised [sic] that the PCN was axed [sic] to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle.

Retraining for this assessor would not be suitable. A career change is better advised.

Coupon-mad

Big (and very basic) mistake by a supposed trained Assessor. Looks like a newbie but no excuse. Appalling misinterpretation. They only have ONE schedule of one law to understand.

Sigh...