POPLA Decisions

Timewarp

Ah man. It's always that time you forget to save something when you need it…

Coupon-mad

"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."

Yes you can. Send the DPO at POPLA a SAR asking for two things:

• the missing evidence from you and from ECP as you can no longer see either;
• all contact to/from ECP since the first decision, because you cannot determine why they objected to the first decision and what was 'missed' and identified by POPLA as a procedural error.

stud26

I've just received an "unsuccessful" POPLA decision. I'm shocked, but is it worth pursuing further with the CAB?

Thanks in advance for any advice

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149065#Comment_82149065

Never, ever ask Citizens Advice about what to do with a parking invoice.

They are clueless and need to improve their appallingly wrong advice.

Obviously you just ignore a POPLA loss and won't be paying. It changes nothing.

Post the POPLA Decision here but promise me you won't actually post it without adding ten paragraph breaks to it first. No wall of text please, or we can't read it.

🙂

soulfella

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameHuda JamaAssessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to obtain a valid ticket or cashless 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 appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not contain the information required by paragraph 9(2)(b) and paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4. • The appellant states that, as the Notice does not comply with Schedule 4, the keeper cannot be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant believes the appeal should be allowed. All of the above has been considered in making my determination. 

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 operator has also provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The signage advises motorists that Pay on Arrival or Permit Holders Only and that Payment must be made by 04:00am upon arrival to the car park. The signage further advises that unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles may be issued with a Parking Charge of up to £100. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) evidence showing that the vehicle entered the site on 31 March 2026 at 06:42:17 and exited at 16:17:56. The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice was issued due to failing to obtain a valid ticket or cashless parking session. The operator has provided payment audit records for the site and states that there was no payment recorded for the vehicle on 31 March 2026. The records provided do not show a payment associated with the appellant's vehicle registration for the date of the parking event. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They further state that the Notice to Keeper does not contain the information required by paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e) and therefore keeper liability cannot be established. I acknowledge the appellant's comments. However, having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I find that it complies with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper advises that the driver is required to pay the Parking Charge in full, invites the keeper to provide the name and current address of the driver if they were not the driver at the time of the parking event, and warns that the operator may recover the unpaid charge from the keeper if the driver's details are not provided. The operator's evidence confirms that the parking event occurred on 31 March 2026 and that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 08 April 2026. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper was issued within the relevant period prescribed by Schedule 4. I note that the appellant has not identified the driver of the vehicle. As I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the operator is able to transfer liability for the Parking Charge to the registered keeper.# POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as no valid payment was made. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

stud26

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149071#Comment_82149071

Thanks. Here's their decision in a readable format :) I've changed the reg for privacy.

—————————————————————————-

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 displayed on the signs located within the car park.

When parking on a private car park, the driver forms a parking contract with the parking operator. The terms and conditions of this contract are displayed on the signage located throughout the car park. Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and complying with these.

The signs on this site confirm it’s for registered E Permit holders only, no visitor parking. A parking charge of £80 will be issued in the following circumstances: not paid the appropriate fee via pay by phone. The operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained on site for 3 hours 53 minutes. POPLA is an evidence-based service, and I can only base my decision on the evidence presented.

The appellant explains that they attended the Cancer Research UK Race for Life event and that arrangements had been made for participants to use a University of Sussex car park. They state that they parked at the site and paid for parking for a period longer than their actual stay.

The appellant says that, upon receiving the PCN, they discovered that an error had been made when entering their vehicle registration into the PayByPhone application. They explain that their vehicle registration is AB75 YBC, but they mistakenly entered AB75 MBC when making payment. The appellant submits that payment was therefore made for the parking session, albeit against an incorrect vehicle registration number.

The appellant further states that, when they challenged the PCN, the operator's rejection correspondence did not address the registration error. Instead, the operator advised that payment had been made under the "staff parking - pay as you go" tariff and requested proof of a permit. The appellant argues that, when selecting location 810082 within the PayByPhone application, there was no option to choose between different tariffs. They therefore assumed the location was configured as a staff parking area because this wording appeared within the application, rather than because they had consciously selected an incorrect tariff. In support of their appeal, the appellant has provided a screenshot from the PayByPhone application showing location 810082, and I can see that this identifies as staff parking.

They have also provided evidence confirming that a payment of £3.20 was made against vehicle registration AB75 MBC. The appellant additionally explains that they have a young family and that dealing with matters such as this causes additional stress, particularly as they believe they made a genuine attempt to pay for parking on the day in question.

While I acknowledge that the appellant has provided evidence of a payment being made, the payment was not made correctly in accordance with the sites terms and conditions. It is the motorist's responsibility to ensure that payment is made correctly.

Having considered all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the operator has shown that the terms and conditions of the site were not complied with. Although I accept that the appellant appears to have made an attempt to pay, the payment was not made correctly in accordance with the displayed terms and conditions.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

—————————————————————————-

The car was new and we entered one character wrong. We also found the reg we entered isn't registered to another vehicle, further proving it's a genuine mistake. It's infuriating they acknowledge the payment and now are simply on the car park's side. There's no human understanding or compassion for the curcumstances.

Again, any help is greatly appreciated.

yarpsnehpets

That's a clear minor keying error and should be cancelled by the operator under the Code.

You should make a further complaint to POPLA asking why the Assessor not applying the Code in such an obvious situation.

Who was the Assessor?

stud26

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149207#Comment_82149207

Danielle Murphy

Car1980

I acknowledge the appellant's comments. However, having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I find that it complies with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Could you show us the notice? It either complies or it doesn't, but we've seen them proclaim the sky is green before.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149355#Comment_82149355

But not on this thread, which is only for POPLA decisions.