POPLA Decisions

dinth1906

Long story short, i havent seen any boards with actual location code (as i found out later there are some but very small and just few of them on a very large parking lot), so eventually i Googled the number and when typing it from one app to another a made a keying error and entered 6512 instead of 9512. Genuine honest mistake. Now im planning to rely on this POPLA assessment as a proof that the correct location code was so hard to find on the parking lot that even a POPLA assessor has failed to find the correct one in the evidence pack sent by NCP

Coupon-mad

Nice plan.

Nobody has to pay just because some idiot at POPLA makes a duff decision (or any decision) because it's not independent.

No worries and no CCJ risk unless you move house and fail to tell them.

Any claim will be discontinued anyway.

fivestarsamz

Recently, I had a POPLA appeal rejected, and then, after making a complaint to POPLA about the silly decision, they came back with an even sillier response. As recommended by @yarpsnehpets , I thought I would link it here for some response.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82131196/#Comment_82131196

To summarise, the PCN was issued on Hilton Garden Inn - Heathrow T2 by Euro Car Parks. The appeal was, of course, made based on No keeper liability due to not relevant land, amongst other points. The assessor goes on to reject the points and makes claims on behalf of the operator that the PCN is indeed POFA compliant.

After making a complaint to POPLA, the person in the complaints team, Alex, responds with new points that the operator never made and makes assumptions about the relationship between the RK (company) and the driver. It is clear that POPLA is biased and supporting the operator in this case. Can anything further be done to escalate this?

yarpsnehpets

This is the letter mentioned above from (Removed by Forum Team) addressing the mis-assessment by (Removed by Forum Team)

Thank you for your contact dated outlining the reasons why you’re unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I’m responsible for investigating complaints.

Having reviewed your correspondence, I’ve noted the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal; you’ve stated that the assessor misapplied the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and ignored evidence.

I’ve completed a review of the appeal and I’ll address my findings below:
Within your appeal, you claimed that the operator can’t pursue the registered keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the site isn’t relevant land for purposes of the act. In support of your appeal, you provided a copy of the Heathrow Byelaws.

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.

Within PoFA 2012, it states that the act only applies on “relevant land”.
Section 3(1) defines “relevant land” as any land other than:
“(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”

Within its evidence file, I can see that the operator didn’t provide any rebuttal to this ground. Therefore, I can’t be satisfied that the site is relevant land for purposes of PoFA 2012.

However, I consider that the matter falls under agency liability. Having reviewed the evidence, I can see that and the driver of the vehicle was using the vehicle as a company car; the driver was at the airport hotel’s drop off zone on behalf of an airport transfer company.

It’s important to explain that companies are responsible for the actions of their agents. As this is a company vehicle provided to the driver for the purposes of carrying out their duties, the assessor should’ve considered whether ____Transfers Ltd was responsible for the charge as principal on behalf of their agent, who was driving the vehicle and isn’t known.
While I appreciate that the requirements of POFA 2012 may not have been met, the assessor should’ve considered ___ Transfers Ltd responsible as principal rather than as the keeper. Accordingly, I don’t consider a failure to follow POFA 2012 would’ve affected the outcome of this appeal.

While you’ve made reference to other, previous POPLA appeals, I must advise that POPLA assesses cases on an individual basis. As such, any external factors, such as other parking events or appeals, don’t have any bearing on our decision making.

I do recognise that the assessor’s rationale didn’t provide the level of explanation or clarity we would expect to see within our decision-making. In particular, the decision should have more clearly explained why the appeal wasn’t allowed, despite the points you raised about PoFA 2012 and relevant land. For that reason, I’m upholding this aspect of your complaint. I will ensure that appropriate feedback is provided for training and quality purposes, so that the issues identified in this review can be addressed and used to support greater clarity and consistency in future assessments.

Within your correspondence, I’ve noted that you have stated the operator ignored other vital points. I would like to reassure you that the other grounds you raised have been considered as part of this review, alongside the evidence provided by both parties during the appeal. Having done so, I am satisfied that those points don’t alter the overall position. While I have upheld the complaint in relation to the clarity of the assessor’s rationale, I remain satisfied that the outcome reached in the appeal was appropriate based on the evidence presented.

In closing, I’m sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case, but not responded to.

You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

Yours sincerely,
(Removed by Forum Team)

POPLA Complaints Team

Car1980

Nothing you can do now except write an angry email back pointing out that they are obliged to respond to every appeal point. A blanket dismissal of everything without mention is not considering an appeal, it's a pathetic excuse used to squash valid appeal points.

yarpsnehpets

Have to admit that I've been chewing this one over for the last few days.

The first thing to mention is the fact at (Removed by Forum Team) appears to acknowledge the mis-assessment and upholds that element of your complaint.

POPLA is a 'one shot' appeal process and the Assessor got it wrong and mistakenly deemed the keeper liable under POFA when POFA cannot be used - that's a mis-assessment - (Removed by Forum Team) other comments are irrelevant to the process since it's a one shot process - there is no facility to go back in time and alter the response made by (Removed by Forum Team) - that's good news for the Appellant.

In my opinion, the other comments made by (Removed by Forum Team) (AR) are confusing and ill judged.

1. The suggestion that (Removed by Forum Team) (AM) should have assessed the case on the basis of vicarious liability is an error on the part of AR on the basis that such an assessment would immediately constitute a mis-assessment on the grounds of sua sponte - the operator's prima facie makes no reference of any kind of there being liability under on the basis of vicarious liability and, additionally, the Appellant makes no mention of it either in their appeal or in the comments on the operator's evidence - the operator's case is made purely on the grounds of keeper liability under POFA.
2. It is not for the Assessor to make a case on the operator's behalf - the operator must do that themselves - the suggestion by AR, that AM should have assessed the case under vicarious liability is a suggestion which encourages the POPLA Assessor to step in and advocate for the parking operator in a situation where the operator's stated legal argument is clearly insufficient - this is not the action of an impartial Assessor.
3. That the introduction of the vicarious liability argument at the assessment stage would create a 'legal hijacking' - an Assessor introducing a new argument at this stage provides no opportunity for the Appellant to comment on the new evidence / argument - this would be a clear breach of POPLA protocol - note that the Appellant is not allowed to introduce additional appeal points at the 'comments' stage of the process - this protocol prevents the Appellant from 'hijacking' the operator.
4. The comments made by AR relating to vicarious liability are largely incorrect - she is not aware of the legal relationship between the vehicle driver and the vehicle keeper - the operator presents no evidence to demonstrate the nature of this relationship - Barclays v Various Claimants 2020 was a Supreme Court Judgement which established that a Company is NOT vicariously liable for the actions of their subcontractors - in this parking case, the driver was not an employee of the company but in fact a self employed private hire driver.
5. That, according to Government statistics, around 89% of private hire drivers are self employed - AR's comments are totally reliant of the fact that the driver must be employed by the company - she has no evidence of this and her comments are therefore total assumption.
6. AR has no evidence regarding the nature of the particular 'job' which led to the PCN being issued - was it a company job / was it the drivers own client / was the driver simply using the vehicle for his own work on a rental basis / was the job from a lift hail supplier - with no such evidence available, vicarious liability can never be established.
7. AR's comments basically throw AM under the bus - in simple terms, AR is critical of AM for following the correct legal protocols and not introducing legal arguments which are not set out in the operator's prima facie - the fact is that AM has acted correctly in not creating a sua sponte assessment.

hillcats

Operator Information and Evidence

Submitted 02/07/2026

Verification Code 177160****

We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course

Operator Name CP Plus - EW

Operator Case Summary Case Evidence Attached

POPLA assessment and decision 19/08/2026

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Robert Andrews

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to remaining here for longer than the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They visited the retail park with their mother and grandmother. They all have disabilities and various mobility issues. They all have Blue Badges and a badge was correctly displayed in the car. They exceeded the time allocated due to the limitations connected to their conditions.

The Equality Act 2010 states that service providers must make reasonable adjustments to avoid discrimination. There are limited spaces available and disabled drivers have to share with Parent & Child bays. The allotted time is insufficient for disabled persons. After reviewing the parking operator's evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to: •

Their grandmother has a crumbled spine/spinal discs and arthritis, their mother has arthritis and fibromyalgia, and they have a connective tissue disorder. Chasing a PCN like this is unfair. The parking operator has lost no money. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. Bank statements. 2. Their Blue Badges. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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 appellant has explained that visited the retail with their mother and grandmother. Their grandmother has a crumbled spine/spinal discs and arthritis, their mother has arthritis and fibromyalgia, and they have a connective tissue disorder. They all have Blue Badge and one was displayed at the time.

Evidence of their custom on the site and the Blue Badge has been provided. The Blue Badge scheme lets badge holders park free of charge on public roads and public land, not necessarily on private land like the site in question, where signs do not offer concessions for Blue Badge holders. The appellant also feels that this is discriminatory and the parking operator should allow a reasonable adjustment. Section 4 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice recognises the Equality Act 2010 and advises that parking operators must make parking accessible.

While operators must make reasonable adjustments for those with protected characteristics, there isn't a requirement that it allow a breach of its parking terms and conditions. In this case, you simply parked for longer than permitted. Therefore, such claims don't affect the validity of the parking charge notice from a POPLA perspective. The signage here explains that there is a maximum allowed time of 2 hours and between 6:30am and 8:30pm. No parking is allowed outside of those hours and a £100 PCN would be issued for any breach of the terms and conditions.

It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they comply with the terms and conditions at all times. On this occasion, the appellant has remained on the site for 2 hours and 35 minutes. If the appellant required longer than the 2 hours offered here, other parking arrangements could have been made. As this exceeds the maximum allowed stay time by 35 minutes, the appellant has parked in breach of the terms and conditions and they have become liable for a £100 PCN.

I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is unfair and does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have 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. The appellant has also raised a complaint regarding the parking operator as they state the disabled motorists have to share bays with Parent & Child bays and the allotted time is insufficient for disabled motorists.

It is the remit of POPLA to determine if the PCN has been issued correctly based on the parking contract and this does not extend to complaints regarding the parking operator or how they manage their sites. If the appellant would like to take these complaints further, they could do so directly with the parking operator.

I have included a link to their complaints policy here https://groupnexus.co.uk/complaints-policy. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant remained here for longer than the maximum stay period and 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 break that up with ten paragraph breaks, as POPLA decisions are a wall of text…TLDR!

hillcats

Sorry, I forgot to do that, had trouble copy / pasting intially - but hopefully easier to read now…

Umkomaas

It [The Supreme Court] concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate

No it didn’t. ‘in the region’ was not part of the conclusion. POPLA have invented that to support their partiality.