POPLA Decisions

Jenni_D

That is appalling English .. it makes no logical sense. 🤦‍♀️

RobinHill

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6648271/another-britannia-parking-charge#latest

Appeal Refused stating that the PCN was PoFA 2012 compliant. They seem to have completely ignored the first point in the appeal regarding the incorrect date provision.

Full response:

I am reviewing the appeal under keeper liability; I will be referring to them as the appellant throughout my report. POPLA is an independent, single‑stage appeals service. Our role is to determine whether the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly and whether the driver complied with the car park’s terms and conditions. The parking operator has provided a site map and time‑dated photographs showing clear and prominent signage stating pub guests only, pub guests must register their full correct vehicle registration at the bar on arrival and failure to comply with the terms and conditions of utilising the private land will result in a £100 PCN being issued. ANPR images confirm the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park on 20 December 2025 at 19:54 and exited at 20:10, a stay of 16 minutes. The parking operator’s whitelist shows the vehicle registration was not entered to obtained permitted parking.

The appellant advises the PCN is not PoFA 2012 compliant. 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. 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 and the PCN must be issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information, was issued within the relevant time frame and as the driver details were not supplied, the parking operator successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper.

The appellant advises they were initially planning to visit Costa; it was closed so chose to visit the pub however the disabled passenger became distressed. I wish to thank the appellant for supplying this information, I appreciate not being able to visit Costa was no doubt frustrating and when one a passenger become distressed was no doubt worrying. While I acknowledge the information provided, POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances alone. The same explanation was already reviewed by the operator, and no new evidence has been provided; therefore, the case has not been referred back for reconsideration.

The appellant advises the parking operator has failed to take into account the needs of a disabled person/consideration period. 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 are required to comply with. Under Sections 5.1 and 2.24 of The Code, the parking period includes the consideration period, and the parking operator must allow sufficient time for a driver to decide whether to park. In this instance the appellants vehicle would have been permitted a 5-minute consideration period to enable any signage to be reviewed and to decide to either park or exit the car park. In this instance I am satisfied as the vehicle remained in situ for 16 minutes, the 5 minutes consideration period would have expired. I am aware the principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the parking operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant or any passenger had a disability. The parking operator has issued the PCN as the appellants vehicles registration was not entered into the terminal and as such the parking operator would have issued the PCN in these instances regardless of the circumstances. What actions a parking operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the parking operator and has no effect on the validity of the parking charge and POPLA cannot determine if discrimination has occurred as a court would need to answer that.

The appellant advises signage is not compliant. This sectors Code of Practice 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 are required 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. Section 3.1.4 of The Code states signs informing drivers that a parking charge is applicable must do so in a font of comparable size and boldness to the main text. On paid parking sites, the charge must be in a font no smaller than the tariffs or numbers. Section 3.1.6 of The Code 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. I have reviewed a copy of the area site map indicating where signage is located and images of the signage, both provided by the parking operator. I am satisfied that there is ample clear signage at the entrance and throughout the car park advising all motorist of the terms and conditions of utilising the private land. I also note that the signage is made using Oralite a retro-reflective vinyl that meets BS EN 12899-1:2007 class RA2. This is the European Harmonised Standard that has been set for Road Traffic Signs. In addition to their reflective nature the signs are illuminated by lampposts they are attached to or adjacent to, ambient light and light from the vehicles themselves when entering and utilising the site. When utilising private land, it is a motorist responsibility to ensure any signage is observed and adhered to. If unable to comply, then a motorist would be required to exit the car park and locate parking at a different location. By failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of utilising private land, the vehicle would not have been permitted to park for any duration.

The appellant advises no landowner authority. I have reviewed The Code and note Section 14.1 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, a copy of the signed agreement between the landowner and parking operator has been supplied which validates the parking operator has the authority to manage the land and complete enforcement for any breaches in the terms and conditions of use of the private land. I have received no further evidence that would suggest the above contract has been terminated and therefore is still valid. If the appellant wishes to review the document, it can be located within the evidence provided by the parking operator. The parking operator has demonstrated full compliance with the Code and has provided sufficient evidence that the appellants vehicle was not registered to obtain permitted parking. As this constitutes a breach of the clearly advertised terms and conditions, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued. The appeal is therefore refused.

Car1980

I'm more concerned by Popla's notion that the Equality Act can be simply be ignored because "the operator wouldn't have known."

Of course not. No operator can ever know at the time. But now they do and have to comply with the law by cancelling.

Appalling.

Coupon-mad

POPLA Assessor:

"I am aware the principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as having a disability equally with those who do not."

That's not true, POPLA. This is not good enough! It's not about treating people equally.

The EA duty on Service Providers is actually about creating a level playing field which often requires 'reasonable adjustments' above and beyond the service/terms offered, including extended free parking time (or more time for your money in a P&D car park) if needed. Councils tend to add at least an extra hour for blue badge holders.

It's a statutory duty that applies both in advance (identifying discrimination risks caused by fixed policies and proactively mitigating issues, such as adding a term and mechanism allowing disabled people to claim more time) AND retrospectively (waiving fixed policies on a case by case basis).

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the parking operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the appellant or any passenger had a disability.

And that's a clueless, discriminatory response, only addressing 'direct' discrimination where a person's needs are known beforehand.

In a car park scenario, applying policies rigidly is illegal: the issue in this case is indirect discrimination of the disabled population 'at large' for which there is no lawful excuse along the lines: "we didn't know about the passenger's disability".

Jeeez POPLA.

Jenni_D

(Please break it into paragraphs) 😲

SpinninginInfinity

POPLA assessment and decision

14/05/2026

Verification Code

xxxxxxxxx

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to no valid pay and display payment made.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal.

• They are appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the registered keeper, not the driver, ad will not be identifying the driver, which is their regal right.

• Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the notice must specify the relevant land where the vehicle was parked.

The Notice to Keeper only states “Jeffrey Street, Maidstone, ME14 1UD,” which is a public highway and does not identify any specific private land. Furthermore, multiple private parking areas exist on Jeffrey Street, and the postcode ME14 1UD was withdrawn in 2012, making it unreliable as a location reference. Therefore, the notice fails to meet the requirements to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. As such, they cannot be held liable under POFA 2012.

• They attended the site several times since the date and time of the alleged incident to assess the contractual validity of the claim.

• Under the Parking Single Code of Practice (section 3.1.4), any parking charge must be displayed in a font size and boldness comparable to the main text, and not smaller than the tariff where shown. • As shown in their photographic evidence (attachment 2410276343_TermsandConditionsSignage_Day), the charge amount is significantly smaller, not bold, and blends into surrounding text. It is also smaller than the displayed tariff on the same sign.

• Therefore, the signage does not comply with the Code’s mandatory requirements. • Under section 3.1.6 of the Parking Single Code of Practice, signage must be clear and legible in all lighting conditions. Their photographic evidence (attachment 2410276343_TermsandConditionssignage_Night), taken in similar lighting conditions to the alleged event and at close range, shows the sign is not clearly visible. The image metadata confirms it has not been altered.

• Even at close proximity, the terms and conditions are not legible, meaning the signage is not conspicuous or readable in low light. Therefore, it fails to meet the Code’s mandatory requirements.

• The Parking Single Code of Practice (section A.2.1) requires minimum text sizes for entrance signage based on vehicle approach speed. For a typical speed of 15 mph, Group 1 text must be at least 60mm high, meaning Group 2 text must be at least 30mm (50% of Group 1).

• Both entrances to the car park have an approach speed of 15 mph and display identical signage. However, the upper entrance sign (attachment 2410276343_UpperEntranceSignLettering) shows Group 2 text at approximately 25mm, below the required 30mm, and therefore non-compliant.

• Additionally, this sign appears to be positioned on the public highway, giving a misleading impression that restrictions extend beyond the claimant’s land, and cannot reasonably form a contractual basis. They require Euro Car Parks to prove it is within their controlled land.

• The lower entrance sign is mounted approximately three metres high and, being of the same size and text, also appears non-compliant. They require proof that its Group 2 text meets the required minimum 50% size of Group 1 text.

• Section 3.1.6 of the Parking Single Code of Practice requires that signs be clear, visible, and legible in all lighting conditions, and positioned appropriately for viewing by drivers (including at night) or pedestrians.

• Section A.2.2 of the Parking Single Code of Practice states that entrance signs should be positioned so drivers can read them without diverting their attention from the road ahead.

• The lower entrance signage fails to meet this requirement. As shown in attachment 2410276343_LowerEntranceSignage, the sign is not legible in all lighting conditions as required under section 3.1.6. Its height and positioning, combined with vehicle entry speed from the public road, mean the terms are not sufficiently conspicuous. Drivers would need to look away from the road to read the sign, which is particularly important given that this entrance also serves as an exit.

• Additionally, the entrance view is partially obstructed by a height barrier (attachment 2410276343_LowerEntrance_HeightBar), further reducing visibility of the signage.

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal, they express dissatisfaction with the evidence. They state: “The Audit report featured on page 12 of 43 cannot be considered as evidence that a payment wasn’t made on the balance of probabilities despite the correct monies being submitted.

As this is a car park local to the main shopping area within a county town on the last few weeks before Christmas It is extremely unlikely that there weren’t any parking transactions whatsoever between 13:49 on the 7th of December 2025 and 06:39 on the 8th of December 2025 as claimed in the report. The operator also states that these are transactions “completed during the parking event”, 17:27 to 17:54 on the 7th of December 2025, but are clearly not. This report is therefore a poorly compiled extract rather than a true representation of the transactions processed with a considerable omission of transactions before and after the date and time of the parking event”.

The appellant has provided a map of the area, and photos of signage taken at day and night as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

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. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator’s signage at the site states: PRIVATE PROPERTY. WELCOME TO JEFFREY STREET CAR PARK 24 HOUR PAY AND DISPLAY/PAY BY PHONE CAR PARK. CHARGES APPLY AT ALL TIMES…EVENING RATE 17:00 HOURS TO 07:00 HOURS…£1.90…FAIURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUE OF A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE…DISPLAY A VALID TICKET…CLEARLY INSIDE WINDSCREEN OR HAVE A VALID PAY BY PHONE SESSION…WE ARE USING CAMERAS TO CAPTURE IMAGES OF VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES AND CALCULATE THE LENGTH OF STAY BETWEEN ENTRY AND EXIT AT ALL TIMES…”. The entrance signage at the site states: “WELCOME TO JEFFRY STREET CAR PARK…”. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for 27 minutes.

The operator has evidenced from its system report that there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this land on the date of the event, along with a list of payments made on the day by other motorists at the site.

I will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN.

I note the appellant is unhappy with the parking operator’s evidence, It is important to note that POPLA is an evidence-based service. It is not the role of a POPLA Assessor to gather evidence or contact witnesses for either party. Each party is invited to provide any evidence they wish to be considered, and the decision is based solely on what is submitted.

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.

The address within the PCN is stated as Jeffrey Street- Maidstone, Jeffrey Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1UD. The parking operator’s entry signage mentions Jeffrey Street, the parking operator has also provided a document with the address the same as the PCN, I note the appellant’s comments regarding the post code being discontinued, they have not supported this with evidence, based on the evidence presented to me, I am satisfied the address within the PCN to be the true and correct address of the site.

This sector Code of Practice has been 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. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024.

The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 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. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. Signs in general tend to have meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, such as those above.

The parking operator has provided a series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of signs highlighted. The appellant has provided the photos mentioned above. Both parties have provided photos of the site taken during dark/night conditions, upon review I am satisfied the lighting at the site during these conditions is sufficient to bring the signage to the attention of motorists.

I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site.

The amount of the PCN, and requirements within the signage is sufficiently clear for motorists to understand, while I note the date and time the motorist parked within the site, however, as explained above the parking terms apply 24 hours a day, charge apply at all times.

The parking operator has not placed signage along or within public land, the signage placed at the site by the parking operator has been placed at the entrance, with the private land car park, and within the site. There are no requirements for the parking operator to place signage on public land, they can only place signage within the land they manage, which is private, not public land.

I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site.

Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them. The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for 27 minutes, they were required to pay for their parking. While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the list of payments made at the site on the day, and I realise not payments were made during the period the appellant parked at the site, the evidence shows payment options were working on the day, the appellant has not provided any evidence of their own to suggest otherwise. Due to this, I am satisfied the motorists had the opportunity to pay for parking on the day.

When parking on private land, it is the responsibility of all motorists to be aware of how long their vehicle has remained at the site and to make the appropriate payment for parking to cover the full duration of their stay.

Having considered all the evidence provided, I find that the motorist did not pay for their parking and did not comply with the site’s terms and conditions. I appreciate the appellant’s explanation and the effort taken to provide detail, but based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly, and the appeal must be refused. Although the appellant has commented on the parking operator's evidence, I have not identified any details that significantly affect my evaluation of the PCN. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

Jenni_D

You could have just clicked on the symbol like below, at the top-right of your post to edit the previous message 😉 but thanks. 🙂

SpinninginInfinity

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81999629#Comment_81999629

Must have had that Friday feeling.

Coupon-mad

Which parking firm?

This bit below is madness from POPLA, given the driver parked around 5pm and (as they stated in comments) this is a car park local to the main shopping area within a county town on the last few weeks before Christmas. It is extremely unlikely that there weren’t any parking transactions whatsoever between 13:49 on the 7th of December 2025 and 06:39 on the 8th of December 2025 as claimed in the report.

Yet despite the payment system shown as not working for a whole day, the Assessor says:

"While I note the appellant’s comments regarding the list of payments made at the site on the day, and I realise not payments were made during the period the appellant parked at the site, the evidence shows payment options were working on the day, the appellant has not provided any evidence of their own to suggest otherwise."

"the evidence shows payment options were working"

It doesn't.

"the appellant has not provided any evidence of their own to suggest otherwise."

How exactly can they and why should they? The PPC's own evidence shows a 17 hour system failure!

Coupon-mad

Please delete the earlier post completely with the unreadable decision wall of text.