POPLA Decisions

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82091251#Comment_82091251

Interesting points.

This is taken from a recent POPLA assessment;

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims and prove that it issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly.

Car1980

 It is the responsibility of the operator to provide POPLA with sufficient, clear evidence in order to rebut the appellant’s claims.

If that was true you wouldn't see "the appellant claims xyx, but without evidence I cannot be satisfied this is the case."

It's a mess and the only response Popla will give is that it's an "evidence based service".

yarpsnehpets

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82091337#Comment_82091337

I understand what you are saying but that is the very point I was trying to make;

That in a situation where the operator either fails or cannot rebut an appeal point the Assessors immediately break from protocol and write "without clear evidence I cannot be satisfied…blah blah blah" - those instances which you highlight are breaches of protocol - those breaches of protocol are a deliberate attempt to favour the operator in a circumstance where following the protocol would often be fatal to the operators position.


What the Assessor should have written is;

The Appellant states that his vehicle in not registered as a commercial vehicle. The operator is therefore required to provide sufficient evidence to specifically rebut this appeal point. In this instance the operator has provided no evidence which shows that the Appellant's vehicle is legally registered as a commercial vehicle and therefore I must allow this appeal point.

Car1980

Yep. You'd have to get it from the horse's mouth because it's a farce.

Try putting your points to them and see what the correct protocol is, because I'm only going by mine because this is the system most assessors appear to abide by (phoney targets aside).

yarpsnehpets

From another consumer site;

Appellant appealed purely on the basis that the PCN from Euro Carp Parks did not comply with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e). The appeal wording was very specific and very focused.

The Assessor does not address any of the appeal points and simply deems the NtK to be compliance as it invites the keeper to provide driver details.

The other points referenced by Lyndsey Howgate is simply padding which she inserts purely so she has something to write while she carefully tiptoes around the actual appeal points. The text used bears no relevance to the submitted appeal.

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name - Lyndsey Howgate
----
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked without a valid PayByPhone transaction covering the full duration of the stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. For ease of reference, I will refer to the registered keeper as the appellant throughout this decision. The appellant has challenged the PCN on the basis that the notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and that they do not consider the parking operator has established liability for the charge. After reviewing the operator’s evidence pack, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the evidence provided and the handling of the appeal. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly, based on the evidence supplied by both parties. POPLA cannot direct how a parking operator manages its internal appeals process or require it to provide evidence outside the scope of the appeal. If the appellant wishes to raise a complaint about the operator’s handling of the matter or requires any additional evidence, they should contact the parking operator direct.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is an independent, single-stage appeals service. I must determine whether the parking operator has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the PCN was issued correctly and that the terms and conditions of the car park were either accepted and breached, or otherwise enforceable against the appellant.

The parking operator has provided a copy of the signage displayed at the site, a site map showing the position of the signs, ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park, and PayByPhone/payment records for the date of the event. The signage states that paid parking is available Monday to Friday from 17:00 to 08:00, and all day Saturday and Sunday. It sets out the applicable tariffs, the available payment method, and explains that failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in a £100 PCN being issued.

The ANPR images show that the vehicle entered the car park on 18 April 2026 at 13:37 and exited at 18:10. This amounts to a total stay of 4 hours and 33 minutes. The parking operator’s payment evidence shows that a PayByPhone transaction was made at 14:17, covering parking for 3 hours and 42 minutes, at a cost of £5.70.

I have considered the appellant’s comments regarding PoFA. Where a parking operator seeks to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, it must comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA and the PCN must be issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention. In this case, having reviewed the PCN and the parking operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided sufficient evidence to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper due to no driver details being supplied. I therefore find that keeper liability has been established. Therefore I am satisfied that the PCN is PoFA 2012 compliant.

I have also considered whether the driver had sufficient notice of the terms. The parking operator’s evidence shows that signs were present at the entrance and throughout the site. The signs clearly described the parking terms, the requirement to make payment, and the consequence of non-compliance. I am satisfied that the terms were prominently brought to the attention of motorists and were capable of forming a contract. The evidence shows that payment was made after the vehicle entered the site and that the payment purchased did not cover the full period the vehicle remained parked. The total stay was 4 hours and 33 minutes, while the PayByPhone transaction only covered 3 hours and 42 minutes.

On this basis, the vehicle remained parked beyond the paid-for period. The appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show that a further valid payment was made, that the vehicle was exempt from the terms, or that the parking operator’s records are unreliable. While I acknowledge the appellant’s position, the evidence supplied by the operator demonstrates that the parking session did not cover the full duration of the stay Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the advertised terms and that sufficient payment is made for the time the vehicle remains on site. In this case, I am satisfied that the parking operator has shown that the vehicle was parked in breach of those terms. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal is refused. As the decision has now been issued for the appellants appeal, we have reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal. POPLA is a one-stage appeal process and the decision is final meaning its involvement in the appeal has come to an end

Jame4ters

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82087176#Comment_82087176

Love this phrase from Jamie -

“POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector”

They are far from impartial or independent based on any normal definition of those words.

apn8keh

Recent win against UKPC who were ticketing people who were taking their pets to the emergency vets. The terminals necessary to validate a stay didn't arrive until about 4 months after the ANPR cameras went live, so they were ticketing like crazy and not responding to cancellation requests from the retailer. The appeal was on the following grounds so not sure why they didn't think it was worth contesting:

Ground 1: Signage deficiencies, omission of core contractual terms and breach of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (No Contract Formed). The signage is wholly inadequate. It fails to prominently display the restricted "no parking" period or the requirement to validate vehicle registration details. Furthermore, UKPC failed to provide the necessary terminal infrastructure for customers to input their own data, creating an impossible contract term.

Ground 2: Lack of Legal Standing and Explicit Cancellation by the Landowners Tenant. The motorist was a genuine customer of the on-site vet on 24th April 2026. The retailer (the landowner’s tenant) has formally requested UKPC to cancel this charge. As UKPC operates purely as an agent, they have no legal standing to pursue a charge against the express wishes of the principal/landowner.

Ground 3: Complete Failure to Invoke Hirer Liability under POFA 2012. The vehicle is a hire vehicle. UKPC failed to issue a Notice to Hirer or supply the mandatory accompanying documents required under Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As a result, UKPC has no lawful right to transfer liability to the hirer, and this charge must be cancelled.

Ground 4: Procedural Impropriety and Inconsistent Enforcement. UKPC has acted arbitrarily by cancelling one PCN for this exact visit while refusing the other. This inconsistent enforcement violates the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice regarding fair dealing.

POPLA assessment and decision

10/08/2026

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Naomi Littler

Assessor summary of operator case

In this case the operator has not submitted any evidence within the 21 days allowed, to show why it
issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the appellant.

Assessor summary of your case

I note the appellant has submitted grounds of appeal. However, as the operator has not given
evidence within the time frame allowed, I do not need to consider the appellants’ submitted
information in order to reach a decision about this appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA's remit is to assess whether a PCN has been issued correctly, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of parking displayed on the signage at a site. When assessing a charge the burden of
proof initially lies with the operator. It must provide evidence of the terms and conditions of the
parking site, how the driver was made aware of the specific parking conditions, how the terms of the
parking contract were breached, and how the appellant was made aware of the charge. As the
operator has not submitted a case file or evidence within the 21 day period allowed, I am unable to
assess the validity of the charge. I note the appellant has submitted their reasons of appeal, however
I have no need to consider this information. I cannot assess the validity of the charge and therefore I
consider it was issued incorrectly and allow this appeal.

sh44ggy

Vehicle stopped and carried commercial unloading at the residential development. P4 Parking tried its luck with issuing PCN for 12 minutes of "Parking at 'No Parking' Zone"

In summary, the appeal grounds covered:

• Failure to properly consider the initial appeal and reliance on undisclosed "third-party information".
• The vehicle was unloading, not parked (Jopson, Jane Packer Flowers, GPS, POD and business records).
• No contract capable of being formed because material contractual terms were never communicated before acceptance (CRA 2015 / CMA37).
• The alleged concierge permit requirement was never communicated until after the PCN was issued.
• Inadequate, contradictory and misleading signage, assessed from the perspective of a first-time delivery driver and against the BPA Code.
• The operator's authority and standing, including ambiguity over who the contracting party actually is.
• The operator's adoption of official-style Red Route signs and road markings whilst attaching materially different private contractual consequences.
• POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a), putting the operator to strict proof of the alleged "period of parking".

The appeal also included GPS evidence, Proof of Delivery, dashcam footage, correspondence with the landowner, BPA Code extracts, POPLA guidance, the Traffic Signs Manual and other relevant authorities.

P4 Parking withdrew within 8 hours of launching an appeal.

POPLA - Your appeal has been withdrawn - Appeal Verification Code xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr P,

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

MSE forum thread

Appeal letter

Jenni_D

Very poor wording .. the operator cannot withdraw your appeal. 🤦‍♀️

sh44ggy

@Jenni_D I was confused when I received this email as well. What does it mean that P4 Parking withdrew the appeal…
I double checked the POPLA website and it looks like they didn't contested my evidence and decided to withdrew the PCN, not the appeal.