POPLA Decisions

yarpsnehpets

That's a procedural mistake by Jamie Macrae?

If the appellant states that the vehicle is M1 type approved then it is for the operator to rebut that point and not the other way about - it is the operator who must provide evidence to show that the vehicle is commercial type approved.

The applying of livery etc does not make a vehicle a 'commercial vehicle' (for legal purposes) and, on the flip side, a commercial van with no livery does not suddenly become a non commercial vehicle.

What about an old guy who punts around in a Mondeo Estate doing a bit of window cleaning on the side - does his car become a commercial vehicle because he slaps a magnetic sign on the side saying, "Jim's Window Cleaning - Phone xxxxx xxxxxx"?

This is simply another assessment where the Assessor deviates from protocol because the correct protocol doesn't favour the operator.

Is there a thread for this case?

LoneStarState

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82087430#Comment_82087430

UKPC charge for "commercial vehicle" parking — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Agree it's a terrible decision. POPLA strikes again.

Coupon-mad

Some dreadful decisions this year.

POPLA seem to be getting worse but the icing on the cake was Ms Muxlow thinking that there are no POFA deadlines or wording rules for a NTK issued after a windscreen PCN.

She only had one job.

There's only one little bit of legislation she needed to read: para 8 of Schedule 4.

Embarrassing!

Car1980

That's a procedural mistake by Jamie Macrae?

If the appellant states that the vehicle is M1 type approved then it is for the operator to rebut that point and not the other way about - it is the operator who must provide evidence to show that the vehicle is commercial type approved.

Sadly not. It's the opposite of county court, where the onus is on the appellant, even if that involves not being able to prove a negative.
But with two caveats - any old landowner agreement is a pass and any old signage is a pass.

The POFA point is black and white though. You can't use "I am satisfied that…" and dismiss a factual error in law just because you want to.

Moony222

A happy win against Total Car Parking, the current subcontractor on the once notorious (in these parts) Swanley Nightinggale Way car parking complex.

The Keeper gave TCP numerous attempts to back down gracefully…..

I really hope this can be especially helpful to any users of the Swanley site, amongst others.

Operator Name Total Car Parks - EW

Operator Case Summary

The Appellant’s vehicle, with registration ZZZZZZ, was parked in Swanley Shopping Centre car park in Swanley. In this car park there are 3 BPA signs which states that this is a Pay or Obtain Authorisation on Arrival, cashless car park, and there are numerous Warning signs in and around the car park which clearly explain “All customers are required to pay for the full duration of their stay using the machine or Parkonomy”. We have attached under Section B a copy of the Warning, Parkonomy, Machine Tariff and BPA signs which are displayed in and around the car park, and photos showing the signs in situ; together with a Plan under Section F of where these signs are located.

We do not own the car park, so we will also provide a partially redacted letter of authority signed by the managing agent authorised on behalf of the landowner, which confirms that they have authorised us to manage the car park and issue and pursue unpaid Parking Charges (Section G, pages 115 to 126).

In this car park, drivers can pay for parking on arrival using any of the four machines on site (one accepts coin and card payments, the other three accept card payments, or by using Parkonomy. Visitors to the McDonalds nearby can obtain a 45 minute parking authorisation by entering their full, correct vehicle registration into the tablets inside McDonalds. PureGym visitors can obtain a 2 hour parking authorisation by entering their full, correct registration into any of the two tablets in the entrance. McDonalds or Puregym Visitors who have authorised but remain beyond the period which their authorisation covers are required to pay for any parking time beyond the authorisation time. Section G, page 128 shows all of the parking sessions created during the time his vehicle was on site.

On 11th March 2026, the appellant’s vehicle was registered by the ANPR system as entering at 22:17:41, and leaving it after 15 minutes at 22:33:40. (Please see Section E, pages 106 and 107 the timed and dated photos taken by the ANPR camera system). ZatPark, the system we use to issue and manage our Parking Charges, could not find any valid parking session in place which covered the vehicle for the full duration of its stay (Section G, page 127), so a Parking Charge was issued. On his appeal to us Mr Moony confirmed that he was the keeper and explained that the Notice to Keeper letter was not compliant with POFA, and that the entry signage was not capable of forming a parking contract.

On the answer to his appeal we addressed these points, outlining that the Notice to Keeper letter was compliant with POFA, and that we have several signs throughout the site displaying the terms and conditions, and that it was the drivers responsibility to ensure that they made themselves aware of the terms and to ensure that they parked in adherence to them.

As the driver did not pay or authorise the vehicle for the duration of the stay, we had no other option than to decline his appeal.

On his appeal to POPLA the appellant has stated: “Keeper Liability under The Protection of Freedom Act 2012. I wish to appeal as the registered keeper and not the driver at the date and time of event. I was not the driver and exercise my legal right not to name the driver. As you are aware strict conditions must be satisfied in order to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). The POFA, Schedule 4 states that “9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. (2) The notice must— (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;” The Notice to Keeper issued by Total Car Parks in this case uses the incorrect POFA wording specifying a period 0f 30, and not 28 days thus breaching mandatory condition 2(f) of the POFA. Liability cannot therefore be transferred from driver to registered keeper under the POFA in this case.” – the Notice to Keeper letter was approved by the BPA as being compliant with POFA 2012 to enable us to pursue a keeper of a vehicle in the event that the keeper does not furnish us with the name and serviceable address of the driver within 30 days of the date of the Notice to Keeper letter being deemed as “served”.

“Entrance signage breaches Under the parking single Code of Practice, 3.1.16, P11 or 57. 3.1.6. Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed, at a height that takes account of whether the signs are intended to be viewed from the vehicle (including by headlight in the hours of darkness) or having left the vehicle by a driver on foot or in a wheelchair. I draw your attention to the date and time stamped photographic evidence of the entrance signage (Attachment Entrance signage Swanley MD166123) on Nightingale Way (Attachment Nightingale Way MD166123) and which was taken as a static observer at a time when lighting conditions were like those at the time of the event and at a date close to that on which the event occurred. One must bear in mind that any unobstructed driver would have passed this sign at approximately 20 m.p.h. having approached it from a straight length of road. As you can see the entrance signage is far from conspicuous and legible in darkness when observed from a static position let alone from a moving vehicle at pace. The lighting supplied for the entrance sign therefore fails to being to attention any terms conveyed by the entrance signage and thus the driver would not have bound by such terms”

– the entry signage was approved by the BPA in wording and sizing prior to installation, the appellants own photo shows that the sign is directly underneath a light which would illuminate this sign. The entry signage does not explain the car park terms, rather it outlines to a driver that they are entering private land where terms and conditions apply, and outline the type of site that a motorist is entering. Once the driver passed this sign, it was their responsibility to seek out the signage displaying the terms to ensure that they understood the displayed terms of the site.

“Lack of contractually binding signage relating to the parking bays in front of Mac Donalds. The car park complex features several distinct car parking areas each with its own set of signs detailing terms and conditions and each segregated from each other by kerbs or a through road, Nightingale Way. The area where the driver parked however, in front of McDonalds (attachment Car Park in front of Mac Donalds Nightinggale Way MD166123), is distinct from these areas and does not feature any signage forming a contract with the driver under the parking single code of practice or previous BPA incarnations.

Total Car Parks are put to strict proof that such signage as applicable to the McDonalds frontage exists as would be required to form a contract between the driver and Total Car Parks under the relevant code.” – we have several signs throughout the site, and signage near to the McDonalds outlining that the area is a No Stopping Area. As explained, from passing the Entry sign the driver was on Private Land managed by us, for which it was their responsibility to seek out signage displaying the terms. There is signage on the McDonalds building explaining that visitors can use the tablets inside to obtain a 45 minute parking authorisation. He has provided no evidence that the driver did visit McDonalds.

“Landowner authority: Total Car Parks are put to strict proof that they have the necessary authority to act for the landowner in issuance of parking charge notices including such authority as to act for the landowner in pursing legal remedy through the court system.” – Section G, pages 115 to 126 shows our agreement with the managing agent acting on behalf of the landowner. We would comment that it would be peculiar for a landowner to look on silently while we have provided 2 tablets to McDonalds, 2 tablets to PureGym, operate four machines and install numerous signs and cameras.

POPLA assessment and decision

03/08/2026

Verification Code

8361176005

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor Name Sean James Doyle

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to Parking without a valid parking session.

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 incorrect Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) wording has been used by the operator so liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper •

The entrance signage on Nightingale Way is not conspicuous and easily seen in darkness from a moving vehicle •

The front of McDonalds contains no signage regarding terms so no contract can be formed •

There is no evidence of landowner authority In response to the operator evidence provided the appellant has stated • The operator has not considered this issue to be a minor keying error under the BPA code •

The operator has removed the fuzzy match parameter on the system search which would remove close matches that would indicate a genuine attempt to comply with the terms of the site

The appellant has provided 1. A number of photos of the site After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated the initial points of appeal. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCOP) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC), and it came into force on the 1 October 2024. Therefore, this is what I will be referring to in my assessment.

The appellant has raised several grounds for appeal. However, my findings will focus on how the PCN was issued, as this ground has persuaded me to allow the appeal. The appellant states the signage at the entrance to the site is not conspicuous when arriving in poor light and they havea provided a photo. The operator states in their reply this photo shows the sign is attached to a lamp post. This is true but in the photo the light from above does not reach down as far as the sign. The photo show sit is not a large sign and its very poorly illuminated. I have referenced SCOP Section 3 Signs and I am not satisfied the entrance sign was sufficiently illuminated and obvious to convey to an incoming driver that there were terms applicable to parking in the site. I am allowing the appeal on this basis.

Car1980

The entry signage does not explain the car park terms, rather it outlines to a driver that they are entering private land where terms and conditions apply

Absolute drivel.

3.1.1.

An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited.

3.1.2.

The entrance sign must display:

b) whether payment is required, or whether free parking is only available for a limited period;

e) where payment is required, whether on-site cash payment is available.

Car1980

The appellant states the signage at the entrance to the site is not conspicuous when arriving in poor light and they havea provided a photo. The operator states in their reply this photo shows the sign is attached to a lamp post. This is true but in the photo the light from above does not reach down as far as the sign. The photo show sit is not a large sign and its very poorly illuminated. I have referenced SCOP Section 3 Signs and I am not satisfied the entrance sign was sufficiently illuminated and obvious to convey to an incoming driver that there were terms applicable to parking in the site. I am allowing the appeal on this basis.

Well done, but 99% of other assessors wouldn't have entertained this, considering no entrance sign is EVER illuminated.

This is the problem with Popla - zero consistency.

Umkomaas

This is the problem with Popla - zero consistency.

And that’s exactly why it should not be open to ex call centre operators, nail technicians and the occasional author of adult literature, free rein to seemingly make assessments without any form of norm referencing!

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82090202#Comment_82090202

I'm not sure - is what you state not the IAS MO?

POPLA is different.

As far as I knew, POPLA requires that the Appellant make an appeal setting out their appeal points. The operator is then require to respond by rebutting each appeal point / providing their evidence. The Appellant is then invited to comment on the operators submission but cannot introduce addition appeal points at this stage (anti-hijacking protocol).

Maybe others could comment.

In this instance it seemed to me that the Appellant appealed stating that his vehicle was not a commercial vehicle (in law) - it therefore falls to the operator to rebut that appeal point by showing that it was a commercial vehicle - the operator's rebuttal was very weak so the Assessor appears to 'help them out' by questioning the Appellant's claim rather than applying the rules of the protocol. This happens quite a lot with POPLA. In the instance where the POPLA protocol appears to favour the Appellant, the Assessor ignores the protocol.

I agree with your comments on POFA - POPLA Assessors consistently use paraphrasing of the mandatory requirements - this paraphrasing deliberately waters down the requirements of the legislation.

Car1980

No, nothing in particular falls to the operator to rebut. It appears that way because the appellant submits their case first and the operator second. They just have to submit things for the ticklist - signs, photos and contract, although they could get into details and argue against particular points, but that hits profitability. It is the same system as the IAS, but the assessors are instructed to fail half instead of 95%.

Everything falls on the appellant to provide evidence of everything they claim.

In this instance it seemed to me that the Appellant appealed stating that his vehicle was not a commercial vehicle (in law) - it therefore falls to the operator to rebut that appeal point by showing that it was a commercial vehicle 

Exact opposite I'm afraid. It IS a pink flamingo unless the appellant can prove it isn't.