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.

daeargwr

Operator: Premier Park Ltd

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the motorist didn’t pay for their whole period of parking.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report, I’ve summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points and checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • consideration and grace periods were not applied; • the operator hasn’t shown that there was an unpaid period of parking; • the signage doesn’t comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice; • evidence of the period parked hasn’t been provided; and • evidence of landowner authority hasn’t been provided. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • a photograph of tickets; • photographs of the site; and • photographs of the signage. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal and provided comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I’m allowing this appeal with my reasoning below: The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist’s vehicle was on site for four hours and 10 minutes and they only purchased four hours of parking time. Section 5.2 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to a permitted parking period. Annex B indicates that the grace period for this site should be 10 minutes. After applying a 10-minute grace period to the motorist’s stay, I cannot be satisfied that a breach of the terms occurred. Therefore, I’m not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued. Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, evidence, and comments, addressing them will not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

amidamaru22

Original Thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6639631/popla-appeal-pps-parking-western-gateway-hm-passport-office-advice-on-response-wording

funny as they used pictures showing signs at the entrace - from a DIFFERENT STREET. and the assessor accepted it as adequate. anyway

POPLA assessment and decision

29/01/2026

Verification Code

5663005756

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameAlex JamesAssessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) due to being parked on the red route.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal. • They are appealing the PCN as the registered keeper. • The PCN alleges the vehicle was parked on double red lines, however they dispute this. • They say that the signage was inadequate and the signage was poorly positioned. • The only visible sing was positioned parallel to the road and not facing oncoming traffic. • They say the signage was impossible to view from the driver’s side so this is contrary to requirements for clear and prominent signage. • They state, no stopping markings should be red and there is an annual report from POPLA which IAS will be familiar with, where Lead Adjudicator, barrister Henry Greenslade refers to what a no stopping zone must look like with red lines and repeater signs. These signs do not exist at the entrance to Western Gateway nor are there repeater signs through the area. • The signage was also obstructed by another oncoming vehicle, and there was no opportunity to consider the terms and conditions. • Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012 As the registered keeper. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal regarding signage and state that the picture of the entrance sign is not there, and they have provided an image from Google street view. They say that the contract does not have any provision for grace periods which should be required in private car parks for time to enter and decide over whether the driver wants to accept the contract or not. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal. • Photograph showing the entrance to Western Gateway. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. Parking operators must 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 and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper as the driver details were not provided on request. They say that the PCN stated they parked on double red lines, but they dispute this and say that the signage was inadequate. The appellant has also referred to sections of the BPA’s code of practice, however the Single Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC) and is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, so this is what I will use to summarise my reasons as this was affective from the 1st of October 2024, and the parking event occurred on the 13th of October 2025. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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. The operator has provided an image of the entrance sign that tells drivers that there is no parking on red routes, and to see signs for full parking terms and conditions. After consideration, I am satisfied that this complies with section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice, and drivers are warned accordingly on entrance to Royal Victoria Dock, 1 Western Gateway, London, E16 1XL The appellant has provided an image taken from Google Street View from 2023 for 11 Western gate. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice 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. The operator has also provided images of the signs that tell drivers that there is no parking on the red route and the area is monitored 24 hours and day, 7 days a week. The signage also says there is no waiting on the red routes or pedestrian footpaths. These images are date stamped the 13th of October 2025, when this contravention took place. Although I can see a van Infront of the appellants vehicle, there is also a sign behind. After consideration, I am satisfied that the signage complies with section 3.1.3 of the Single Code, as the term and conditions are clear for drivers to see and understand, and the driver had the opportunity to view them had they of wished. In addition to this, the double red lines are clearly identifiable as a restricted red route. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether to park. In this case, a 5-minute consideration period must be applied to allow motorists time to view the signs and leave if they are unable to comply. However, the operators’ images are from 11:20 until 11:43, so the driver accepted the terms of a contact by parking on the red route and remaining for longer than the 5-minute consideration period, instead of reading the signs and leaving when immediately if they did not want to cause this PCN to be issued. The operator has provided images of the appellants vehicle parked on the red route for a 43-minute duration, so this caused the PCN to be issued. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. In this case, a 10-minute grace period does not apply as this is only appropriate when a motorist has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions and must be afforded time to leave, like a pay as you go site or maximum say. This does not apply in this case as the driver was in breach of the terms by parking on the red route. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked on the red route, so 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.

Coupon-mad

Please add ten or more paragraph breaks!

BunnyPaws

Operator Name Premier Park - EW

25/03/2026

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NameKevin Woodall

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to whole period of parking not paid for.

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 say the driver was only aware of the single entrance sign which state that terms apply and was not in the driver’s line of site, however, no other parking terms were visible from the driver’s seat either on entry or when the vehicle was parked.

• They advise the photographs they have provided, were taken after the parking event to show the signs were not prominently displayed throughout the area and had to be looked for on foot and the operator is not clearly identified.
• They state the driver was not given a fair opportunity to read, understand or accept any terms and no valid contract could have been formed.

• They advise no liability can be attached to them as the registered keeper.

• They say the operator has not shown landowner authority to enforce charges. The appellant has provided photos of the site and a close up of the entrance sign.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. They have expanded their grounds and advise the signage evidence is from 2017 to 2023, and not 2025 like their photos and do not show the scale of the distance and site. The photos are taken in daylight and has provided a redacted contract. They have raised new grounds and advised the operators generic response is wrong as it contains information not related to this instance, no evidence shows where the vehicle was parked, the operator has relied on payment logs which is irrelevant, and the operator has admitted there is no direct lighting in the area. I must advise that POPLA does not accept new grounds of appeal at the comment stage. 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 comments were not raised in the initial appeal, I am not required to consider these as part of my decision. All of the above has been considered in making my determination. 

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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs state “…Please pay for your stay…Up to 2 hours £1.00…See machines for payment details…” The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100. The operator has provided a payment log to demonstrate that no payment was made. • The say the driver was only aware of the single entrance sign which state that terms apply and was not in the driver’s line of site, however, no other parking terms were visible from the driver’s seat either on entry or when the vehicle was parked. • They advise the photographs they have provided, were taken after the parking event to show the signs were not prominently displayed throughout the area and had to be looked for on foot and the operator is not clearly identified. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I have reviewed evidence from both parties and can confirm the following. I must advise as the parking event taken place in the daytime, I will not be discussing how the signs looked in the dark. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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. The evidence both the appellant and operator have provided shows that the is a sign on a pole upon entering the site that states in bold dark blue capital text that parking restrictions are in place and to see the signs on site. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice 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. While the appellant has provided photos, the operator has provided a more in-depth set of photos of the signs. The operator has shown that the signs are attached to walls, poles, and fences throughout the site as well as on the entrance to the building. It has also provided a map showing where these are located. They are large and easy to identify and state in bold blue text that payment needs to be made as well as listing the tariffs. I am satisfied the signs adhere to what is required in The Code. As the operator has provided a more in-depth view of the site, I am satisfied that the signage was present. • They state the driver was not given a fair opportunity to read, understand or accept any terms and no valid contract could have been formed. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, a five-minute consideration period was provided. As this was exceeded and the vehicle remained on site, the contract was accepted. • They advise no liability can be attached to them as the registered keeper. 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 and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. • They say the operator has not shown landowner authority to enforce charges. 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. In this case, the operator has provided evidence which shows the contract started with the landowner on 25 February 2019 for 12 months and continued after this date and would terminate if 12 weeks’ notice in writing had been provided. I am satisfied the operator has met the requirements of section 14 and a contract to enforce PCN’s was in place the date the appellant parked. 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, as no payment for parking was made, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

ezerscrooge

Minster Baywatch - Grosvenor Casino Bolton.

Original thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6615181/minster-baywatch/p1

Successful

Decision date: 20/02/26

POPLA Code: 4113245020

Assessor Name: Bethany Young

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised several points in their grounds of appeal. However, for the purpose of my report, I will be focusing on the following: • The signs refer to Bransby Wilson and not Minster Baywatch and their payment went to Bransby Wilson, so the driver has not entered into a contract with Minster Baywatch. In support of their appeal, the appellant has submitted the following evidence: 1. Their RingGo payment to Bransby Wilson. 2. The Bransby Wilson signage. 3. An old tweet from the Supreme Court. 4. A comparative Parking Eye sign. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I will be allowing the appeal, and my reasoning is outlined below: It is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide POPLA with sufficient and clear evidence to demonstrate that it issued the parking charge notice correctly. In this case the PCN was issued as the parking fee covering visit duration was not paid in full. The appellant has provided evidence of signs on the site which are also present in the parking operator’s case file. These signs clearly indicate that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd manage the site. The RingGo payment the appellant has provided also shows it was made to Bransby Wilson. The signs do not clearly specify who the Creditor is nor does it explain whether Minster Baywatch and Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd are the same company. Therefore, I am satisfied that this has caused confusion for the motorist. I do not consider that the parking operator has adequately rebutted the appellant’s grounds of appeal. The appellant has referenced other points within their appeal to POPLA, but as I have allowed the appeal, I do not feel that it is necessary to address them.

Coupon-mad

That's useful, @ezerscrooge

Could you add the POPLA Code and date of decision by the lovely Bethany, please?

usernamenotfound

Link to my PCN details https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6638807/yet-another-scumbag-parking-eye-letter-fox-house-derby-popla-stage/p9

DecisionUnsuccessful

Assessor NameMichael Pirks

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail: • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle. • They say that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the PCN fee itself, as per the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA). • The parking operator has no proprietary interest in the land and there is no evidence of a contract authorising the parking operator to manage the land, as per section 14.1 of the BPA code of practice. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded their grounds of appeal in further detail, including that only five signs on the car park walls are insufficient, the images are dated from March 2025, and no signs are sufficiently displayed within the newly developed area. The appellant also comments that the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and the contract does not indicate an expiry date. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • Photographs from the site showing the lack of prominent signage, dated from 10 November 2025. • A word document explaining their grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I note the appellant has stated in their appeal that the parking operator has not complied with the requirements of PoFA when it comes to establishing liability, as the driver has not been identified. 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, it is unclear who the driver of the vehicle is and therefore, I must consider the requirements of PoFA, as the parking operator issued the PCN to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Parking operators must 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 within a 28-day period. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and as the registered keeper did not provide the driver’s details as part of the original appeal, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I will be considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN as the registered keeper. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that the site is for permit holders, where motorists must obtain a permit from contacting the details stated, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. To summarise, the appellant has raised they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, and the signage is prominent or clearly legible, and that there is no evidence of landowner authority. As mentioned in their above comments, the appellant has expanded on these grounds, including that only five signs on the car park walls are insufficient, the images are dated from March 2025, and no signs are sufficiently displayed within the newly developed area. The appellant also comments that the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and the contract does not indicate an expiry date. Having considered the terms of the site, a permit was required to cover the motorists’ parking time on the site. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log showing that no permit was registered against the motorists’ vehicle registration and therefore, the PCN has been issued. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This Code came into effect on 1st October 2024 and replaces the previous code of practice. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers can 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 clear and easy to understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, stating the full terms and conditions and the PCN fee is prominently displayed on the signs. The site map shows me that multiple signs are displayed across the site, including a sign at the entry point to the car park, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, and the size of the writing is clear so that the terms can be read. I have considered the appellant’s images and whilst I note these images are taken from November 2025 and January 2026 respectively, and that no signs are displayed, these images are only taken from specific points of the car park and do not represent the car park as a whole. In contrast, the parking operator’s images, date stamped from November 2024 and March 2025, are taken from prominent parts of the site in question and the site map shows how many signs are displayed throughout the car park. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is not prominently displayed, which has led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The 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 Whilst I note the appellant does not believe the PCN fee is prominently displayed as per the requirements of PoFA, I am satisfied from the images of the signage attached that the charge is appropriately prominent and would have been brought to the driver’s attention. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. 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. In this case, the operator within its evidence pack has advised that they have authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. POPLA must also consider the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. If the parking operator were not allowed to issue charges on site, the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator do not own the land in question, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operators’ contract with the landowner. Whilst I note that certain parts of the contract are redacted, I am satisfied that a valid contract is in place in accordance with Section 14 of the Code and the parking operator has sufficient authority to issue charges. I have also considered the appellant's document and whilst I appreciate the detail included, this information does not invalidate the issue of the PCN. Ultimately, as the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Ineedhelp101

POPLA Appeal x Parkmarven is successful. Used same template as in the newbies thread and tweaked it with ChatGPT.

I recieved this email from POPLA:

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

Kind regards

POPLA Team