POPLA Decisions

SunUp

I am genuinely surprised: this concerns 'Pay on Exit' signage (with a Pay and Display machine) at the St. Anthony's Car Park opposite Jubilee Pool in Penzance.

I really thought I'd just be lucky to have fallen within the 10 minute grace period point. This opens up dozens upon dozens of previous PCNs issued for this car park to further scrutiny and possible refunds . . .

The original story thread and all the materials supplied in the appeal are here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6677015/st-anthonys-car-park-penzance-jubilee-pool-pay-on-exit-parking-eye-pcn-popla

[Decision verification code: 6061836***; decision date 25 September 2026]

Decision Successful

Assessor Name Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case The operator’s case is that the appellant didn’t purchase the appropriate parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report, I’ve summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points and
checked each point before coming to my conclusion.

The appellant has stated that:

• the signage in the car park is false, deliberately misleading and dishonest, as are the actions of the operator;

• the operator hasn’t shown that the terms and conditions and tariffs were clearly brought to the attention of the driver;

• the operator has failed to apply a consideration/grace period;

• the operator hasn’t shown that it has any landowner authority;

• the operator has claimed a false parking tariff, which isn’t displayed on any signage;

• the operator hasn’t complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;

• ANPR evidence isn’t sufficient without proof of accuracy, synchronisation and compliance;

• the operator has breached the British Parking Association Code of Practice and GDPR regarding signage and ANPR camera usage; and

• neither the operator nor the landowner have planning permission.

To support their appeal, the appellant has provided:

• images of signage;

• a copy of a ticket;

• images taken from Google Maps;

• a screenshot of a MSE forum post;

• a screenshot of the operator’s system;

• copies of the parking charge notice; and

• copies of emails.

After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has provided comments.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist didn’t purchase the appropriate parking time; the motorist was on site for two hours and 10 minutes and only purchased two hours of parking time.

Within their appeal, the appellant has told POPLA that the signage is deliberately misleading.

Specifically, they’ve explained that the signs advise motorists to pay on exit and that it’s an automatic number plate recognition monitored car park, but don’t give any further clear information regarding the payment requirements.

In this case, the appellant has advised that they paid on exit, following the instructions, and assumed that the system would calculate the duration of their stay.

Section 3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that parking operators must have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking, including the payment information.

Within its evidence file, the operator has provided images of the signage on site.

Having reviewed this evidence, I can confirm that the signs advise motorists to pay on exit, and that their full, correct vehicle registration number is required.

I therefore agree that it’s reasonable to assume that the system will calculate the amount due at the end of a motorists stay.

While the operator has provided a copy of the payment machine’s instructions which require motorists to manually input their stay time, I can’t be satisfied that it’s reasonable to then expect a motorist to know their exact time of arrival, based on the terms they accepted at the beginning of their stay, as they’re led to believe
that it’d be calculated for them.

Section 5.2 and Annex B then indicate that motorists must be allowed a 10-minute grace period in addition to a permitted period of parking. The purpose of this time is to allow a motorist leeway to comply with the parking conditions.

In this case, the shortfall of unpaid time is just over 10 minutes, with eight of them being at the beginning of their stay.

Based on the grounds put forward by the appellant, I’d consider this to be a reasonable grace period under the circumstances; the appellant wasn’t made aware that they were required to keep track of the length of their stay and select the appropriate tariff accordingly.

As a result, I can’t be satisfied that the PCN is being correctly pursued.

Although I acknowledge the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, evidence, and comments, addressing them won’t have any bearing on my decision.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Coupon-mad

She's getting better. Never seen POPLA talk about reasonableness before!