POPLA Decisions

Car1980

While operators must make reasonable adjustments…

…there isn't a requirement that it allow a breach {sic}

That is LITERALLY what a reasonable adjustment is.

hillcats

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.

yep, complete disregarded the fact of three disabled people, even knowing their conditions, to focus on just the overstay - jokers !

Quiet1234

Groupnexus in a retail carpark overstayed 3 hours. Dropped case after popla appeal

Perdusys1955

We've just had a succesful appeal to POPLA overturned due to ECP appealing their decision due to Procedural error. Their evidence seems to rest on the fact that the machines were working correctly because other people had been able to pay. No way could we have only entered "N" only as part of our VRM as it doesn't even form part of the reg, and it is a vehicle recognition system with no printed tickets, not sure how we would have known what to pay for our 34 minute stay. POPLA agreed we have paid for the parking and their retraction hinges on the major miss keying event.

I will take the advice given on othern posts and let them take this to court, however I deleted all the evidence we had used and they sent to us when we had the succesful decision. Can I ask POPLA to provide them again?

yarpsnehpets

@Perdusys1955

That's not possible - POPLA are a one shot appeal service.

Can you post up the email you've had from POPLA regarding this?

Perdusys1955

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor Name Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for no valid payment purchased.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal which have been summarised for the purpose of my report: • The appellant paid on the 14th as shown on the statement, however payment was collected on 15th. • They say the operator cannot tie up the payment with the vehicle registration and the machine does not allow motorists to type in the incorrect registration as it prompts it is wrong. • Their bank gave them the details after seeking them out however, they have been unable to give them to the operator. The details are 06104150299993 and payment made 3 minutes before exit. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of the payment and letter to the operator confirming the Apple Pay dummy card payment details as evidence to support their appeal. This evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

Before I begin my assessment I find it important to explain that I am completing a reassessment as evidence was missed during the first assessment of this case. I am considering all evidence during my assessment of this appeal. When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the PCN correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The signs make it clear that up to 1 hour is £1.10 and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued. The signs also state payment must be made at the end of your visit to cover the full length of stay and to ensure that the full and correct registration is entered when making payment. The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit confirm the time the vehicle was on this land 34 minutes in total. 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. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and note they say payment was made for their stay. I have viewed a copy of the letter and the payment made to the operator. I can see that the operator has confirmed since this evidence was provided it managed to locate their payment made of 14 April 2026 which corresponds with the date of the event. However, this payment was not valid as the full and correct vehicle registration was not inputted when they paid. The operator’s transaction report shows a payment of £1.10 made at 16:04 was assigned to registration ‘N’ which is not the full, correct vehicle registration as such, it is clear a major keying error was made. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Subsection major keying error examples such where there are digits missing. In this case by entering the letter ‘N’ only, there are more than one digit missing and therefore, this matter is classed as a major keying error. The operator offered the £20 reduction for 14 days after reviewing the appellant’s evidence of the payment to letter ‘N’ as it located it on the system on the date. The £20 reduction is offered for 14 days in order to cover the costs incurred with applying to the DVLA for the keeper’s information and other costs in issuing the PCN. The appellant rejected this offer resulting in the PCN now increasing to the £100 amount. I am satisfied the operator met the requirements of section F.3a of the Code. I note they place blame on the machines however, in order to rebut the appellant’s challenges to the machines being at fault, the operator has provided a copy of the transaction logs which shows that there was the ability to pay on the date of the event as other motorists were successfully doing so. Therefore, I cannot hold the machine to fault when it is clear that it was working. The machines are programmed to accept a motorist’s input of the vehicle registration. As some vehicle registrations can be shorter/longer than a standard vehicle registration due to personalisation, the machine does not have the technology to identify when a vehicle is being entered incorrectly. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure it has been entered correctly. Ultimately, POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the car park. As the vehicle parked without a valid payment, I am satisfied that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and accordingly the appeal is refused

Car1980

The question is whether you have entered into a contract with Popla and they have breached it. Thus they would be liable for your costs in formulating your appeal.

Clearly Popla have got to the stage of Russian levels of corruption.

yarpsnehpets

@Perdusys1955

Who was the Assessor?

Also, do you have a copy of the original decision which you'd be willing to post up.

This is quite a serious matter.

We've seen previous mistakes which POPLA have admitted as 'mis-assessments' but on each occasion they have said that they cannot re-assess the appeal.

Perdusys1955

The assessor was Amy Smith. I don't seem to be able to access any of the previous evidence either given by me, or that of ECP.

Hence my asking if it was possibkle to view it. Unless I am doing something stupid, every email I have from POPLA shows the same info about the reassessment. I am away at the moment and not sure if I printed anythign off, I can have a look when I am back.

This is a link to my original request to MSE forum on a different thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6669966/euro-car-parks-popla-appeal

Perdusys1955

This was my rebuttal which I did keep as it was written on my laptop and not on their link.

I am not disputing that this charge is correct, I AM disputing that it was not paid on the machine in the car park.

The copy of the bank entry shows the last 4 digits of the car park location ( 686668) and the fact that it was debited on 15th April for a transaction on 14th April. I also provided the last 4 digits of the bank card 6022 and then later the dummy Apple Pay which was used for contactless payment 7319.

In addition, I subsequently spoke to our telephone banking service, who told me the payment was made at 16:04:45 with a reference of 0610415029993. I also provided a copy of the entry as printed on both bank statement and the entry on my mobile banking app.

If you look at the schedule of payments, there is clearly an entry at this time which does not appear to have any supporting registration mark, or times. This is highlighted in the payment table ECP have provided. I would assume this relates to our payment. We would have needed to put the complete registration in the payment machine for it to calculate the time duration and calculate the fee. It will not accept incorrect input. I have subsequently tried this to verify that that is the case. If you put in an incorrect figure or number, it informs you it is incorrect, which we would have clearly seen. In addition, there is no facility on the machine which allows you to input a payment figure. As I have previously said, this car park is ANPR pay on exit. There is no pay and display, and your parking fee is calculated when entering your registration at the time of leaving the car park.

I do not know why the machine did not enter the registration mark, we have used this car park many times and have never encountered a problem, and we are well used to paying via the machines. In order for us to know how much to pay, it must have been entered. I really don’t know how you can enter a payment on that machine without entering your registration mark, in spite of ECP saying the machine was working correctly, I do wonder if there may have been a software error. I cannot see how I would have mis keyed anything without being notified.