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!

Car1980

How can these signs exist if they've been audited by the BPA? 🤔

Why are they not being removed if they have been found to be misleading? 🤔

stud26

@Coupon-mad What do I need to do next?

Le_Kirk

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150489#Comment_82150489

If you have a thread open, go back there to continue the discussion. If not, start one. This thread is for POPLA decisions ONLY.

Jack1312

Just found this forum but TLDR; I’m an Aussie tourist who was driving in the UK. My navigation dropped out, so I pulled into the car park (busy one lane road in Burton).

The consideration period in the evidence pack (they were conflating consideration period and grace period in their evidence btw) was 20 min and the camera has me at 22 min (De Minimis?). But Abby believes I’m entitled to no consideration period anyway lmao. Let’s see if we can get the tourist to pay £100 pounds. I appealed on principle.

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Abby Muxlow

Assessor Summary of Operator Case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failure to pay for the duration of stay.

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:

• They were unfamiliar with the area and pulled into the site as their signal dropped on their navigation.
• The vehicle was not left unattended or parked.
• A consideration period must be given.
• The operator is relying on ANPR.
• No contract was formed.

The appellant has provided:

1. A copy of their initial appeal.

Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded on their initial grounds of appeal. All of the above has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor Supporting Rationale 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.

Signage and ANPR Evidence The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise to pay on arrival and that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £100.00. The operator has provided ANPR images to demonstrate that the vehicle remained on site for 22 minutes.

Mitigating Circumstances I acknowledge that the appellant advises that they pulled into the site as their signal had dropped for their navigation and they needed to regain this before continuing, as they were unfamiliar with the area, due to them being a tourist. When looking at appeals, POPLA can only consider if the PCN has been issued correctly in line with the terms and conditions of the site in question. POPLA cannot allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances alone.

POPLA are able to ask a parking operator to consider cancelling a charge, if POPLA do not consider it has reviewed the circumstances. After reviewing the initial appeal, I can see the same circumstances were presented to the parking operator, and no new evidence has been provided. As the parking operator has already made a judgement based on this information and decided to continue with pursuing the charge, I have not referred this case back to the parking operator.

Definition of Parking The appellant has raised that the vehicle was not left unattended or parked and that the operator is relying on ANPR and cannot demonstrate that a parking event took place. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. I refer to 2.19 of the Code, where it defines a parked vehicle. The Code confirms a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land, and being stationary other than in the course of driving is considered as parked. And as per 2.24 of the Code, the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land is the parking period. This includes the consideration period as the parking period and is from entry to exit demonstrated by the ANPR camera images.

Consideration and Grace Periods The appellant has raised that no consideration period has been given. Section 5.1 of the Code states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. A consideration period refers to the time before a motorist chooses to park and utilise the car park. As the vehicle remained on site without a payment being made, no consideration period is applicable.

Section 5.2 of the Code requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. A grace period refers to time given to those who exit a site after a compliant parking session. As the vehicle remained on site without a payment being made, there is no grace period given.

Contract Formation The appellant has raised that no contract was formed, as the time on site was reasonable for them to establish signal for the navigation and review the site terms. Section 3.1.3. of the Code states that signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach, use a sentence-case font size appropriate for the location of the sign so as to be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign, use colours such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible.

The signage provided by the operator including the site map, clearly shows the terms of the contract. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. There is no free period of parking at this car park and by parking at the site, the appellant became subject to the terms of the contract, which apply to all motorists that enter the site. Having reviewed the signage at the site, I am satisfied that it meets the Code and that it makes clear the terms of the contract.

Conclusion POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. The terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as no payment was made for the duration of the stay. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

yarpsnehpets

Abby Muxlow would do well to read and understand the recent CMA open letter to parking operators.

Her assessment ignores / reverses the contents of that letter.

In particular she ignores;

1. ANPR 'time on site' is NOT the period of parking.
2. What happens when a driver chooses to leave without parking (during any consideration period).
3. That the Code of Practice is NOT law and that various parts of the Code clearly breach consumer legislation.
4. The principle of contra-proferentem when establishing what the word 'parking' actually means.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82151336#Comment_82151336

Hope you have confirmed your Oz address as your only address for service?

As long as you do, you are untouchable and never needed to waste any time on appeals.

stud26

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82150921#Comment_82150921

I know, my earlier comments show my POPLA decision, just wondering what I need to do next.

Should I start a new thread anyway?

Le_Kirk

Yes please, then you can receive bespoke advice for you and your issue.