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.