POPLA Decisions

BerriesRGr8

Link to my thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6644457/cp-plus-ltd-nexus-parking-charge-notice/p1

POPLA assessment and decision
11/03/2025

Decision
Successful

Assessor
L Howgate

Assessor summary of operator 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 the PCN issued is not PoFA 2012 compliant as the driver has not been identified. After reviewing the parking operators’ evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided: •Detailed appeal reasoning.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal and will detail my reasoning below: By issuing a PCN the parking operator has implied that the terms and conditions of the private land have not been met. When an appeal is brought to POPLA, the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to demonstrate the breach they claim has occurred. 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 maximum stay 2 hours and failure to comply will result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also supplied images obtained from the ANPR camera that shows the appellants vehicle entering the car park on the 6 October 2025 at 10:05 and exited at 12:49 the same day (2 hours 43 minutes). The appellant states that The Notice to Keeper (NTK) fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the parking 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. I am aware 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. Under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, a parking operator can only transfer liability from the driver to the hirer/keeper of a hire vehicle if they follow very specific requirements. If the parking operator fails any requirement, they cannot pursue the hirer for payment. Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 & 14 of PoFA2012 states that a parking operator must send to the hirer all of the following: a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent to the hire company, a copy of the hire agreement, a copy of a statement from the hire company naming the hirer and must contain mandatory declarations, a fully PoFA compliant Notice to Hirer, containing the mandatory wording: period of parking, creditor details, why the charge is due, the date of sending statements required under PoFA 2012 about keeper liability and if any of the information is missing or defective the parking operator cannot transfer liability. From review of the evidence provided to POPLA, I cannot be satisfied that the relevant information was obtained and provided as this has not been provided to POPLA to review. Therefore I cannot be satisfied that the requirement of PoFA 2012 were met and I am allowing the appeal. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds for appeal, however, as I have decided to allow the appeal for the reason above, I did not feel they required further consideration.

Archerzee

Link to my thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6659174/met-parking-services-left-in-macdonald-039-s-car-park-while-occupants-left-the-premises/p1?new=1


Decision
Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of
operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the vehicle was left in
McDonald’s car park while the occupants left McDonald’s premises.

Assessor summary of your
case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The operator
has failed to demonstrate that the Registered Keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms
Act (PoFA) 2012. The Notice to keeper fails to evidence the period of parking. • No evidence has
been provided that the driver breached any terms and conditions, and the vehicle was parked
for the purpose of visiting McDonald’s. • The signage at the site is inadequate. • The parking
charge is not justi!ed and does not re"ect any genuine loss. After reviewing the parking
operator’s evidence pack, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in further detail.
The appellant has provided images of the location, the vehicle parked and the proof of
purchase as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making
my decision.

Assessor Supporting Rationale for Decision
When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and whether the driver complied with the terms and conditions for using the car park.

The operator has failed to demonstrate that the registered keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The Notice to Keeper fails to evidence the period of parking. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 allows parking operators to transfer liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators must follow certain rules, including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver.

In this case, the PCN includes the necessary information, and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred liability to the registered keeper.

The appellant states that the period of parking was not included on the PCN. However, the PCN clearly states the date of the contravention and the time of 15:41.

The appellant also states that no evidence has been provided to show that the driver breached any terms and conditions, and that the vehicle was parked for the purpose of visiting McDonald’s. While I acknowledge that the appellant claims there is no evidence of a breach and that they were visiting McDonald’s, and I also acknowledge the proof of purchase provided, the operator has submitted CCTV footage from the date in question.

This footage shows the driver and passenger entering the site in vehicle registration XXXXXX, parking, and both leaving the site between 15:23 and 16:04. The warden on site has also provided images showing the vehicle unattended on site between approximately 15:36 and 15:41.

As no sufficient evidence has been provided to the contrary, I am satisfied that a breach occurred. The driver and passenger left the site boundaries, which are clearly identified by signage placed around the car park.

The appellant states that the signage at the site is inadequate. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice that sets the standards its parking operators must comply with. Section 19.2 of the Code states that operators must have entrance signs making it clear that motorists are entering private land.

In this case, the operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present in an appropriate location and clearly states that terms and conditions apply.

Section 19.3 of the Code states that operators must have signage clearly setting out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the terms are clearly displayed. The signage includes bold text stating that the maximum stay is 90 minutes, that drivers and passengers must remain on the premises while the vehicle remains in the car park, and that any breach will result in a £100 PCN.

The operator has also provided a site map and multiple images showing that signs are placed throughout the site, ensuring that motorists have the opportunity to review them. I am therefore satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice.

The appellant states that the parking charge is not justified and does not reflect any genuine loss. This argument requires consideration of the relevant case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in the high-profile case of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have the characteristics of a contractual penalty but may still be enforceable where there are legitimate interests in charging motorists who breach parking conditions. The Court concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate and placed importance on the fact that the charge was prominently displayed on signage.

Although that case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, the underlying principles remain applicable.

Taking these principles into account, I will not consider whether the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss or the landowner’s actual loss. Instead, I will consider the amount of the charge and the legibility of the signage.

After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible and that the charge amount is within the region considered acceptable by the Supreme Court.

The appellant also states in their comments that the ParkingEye v Beavis case is distinguishable. However, this case is widely used across the parking industry when motorists challenge the fairness of parking charges or argue that they do not represent a genuine loss.

Regardless of this point, the driver left the site, and therefore this argument does not affect my decision.

Ultimately, it is the driver’s responsibility to locate and review the parking terms, ensure they understand them, and ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the conditions of the site.

Based on the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.