Azure Parking tickets for stopping a few mins in car park

Coupon-mad

Yep it has to give a period of time.

Danny30

@Coupon-mad
 
Where is the best place to lodge the complaint? All I can see is there generic contact us page on their webiste to complain to? Can't complain to them via the appeals page as far as I can see.

Coupon-mad

When you Google:

Complain to POPLA 

...doesn't an email address come up in your results? Pretty sure it's complaints@

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

When you Google:

Complain to POPLA 

...doesn't an email address come up in your results? Pretty sure it's complaints@

I had to call them to ask where to send the complaint to.

It's Info@popla.co.uk

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

When you Google:

Complain to POPLA 

...doesn't an email address come up in your results? Pretty sure it's complaints@

Hi @Coupon-mad, I got a reply from Popla from the complaint you posted and they have replied that both NTK,s were POFA compliant, despite that not being the case.

Thank you for your email received 3 February 2025, outlining the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeals. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

 It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision.

 The crux of your complaint is that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the Notice to Keeper on your appeals are compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.

 You explain that the wording of least one of the two Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA but the assessor has simply copied the same section for both cases.

 You advise one or both of these Notice to Keepers fails POFA as there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by 9 (2)(e)(i). You state there is also no period of parking specified.

 In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of (POFA).

 Within the case files provided by Azure Parking, it provided copies of the Notice to Keeper issued for both parking events.

 

On case ********* parking charge notice reference number ************, the Notice to Keeper is provided below:

This was issued on 31 July 2024, 12 days after the parking event on 19 July 2024. This confirms the period of parking was 08:53.

 

 

On case ************ parking charge notice reference number ***********, Azure Parking provided the Notice to keeper:

This was issued 31 July 2024, nine days after the parking event on 22 July 2024. This confirms the period of parking was 08:48.

 

 I recognise you have stated the assessor has copied the wording from one Notice to Keeper onto both cases however, on reviewing these above, I cannot agree. It is clear that both Notice to Keeper used identical wording and both notices are fully complaint with POFA.

 

You state this matter will be raised with MHCLG.

 

I note your comments and POPLA will respond accordingly to any correspondence received.

 

Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate  based on the evidence presented.

Coupon-mad

Are the wrong:

" It is clear that both Notice to Keeper used identical wording".

If so, reply with a one liner telling them the difference.

Danny30

Coupon-mad said:

Are the wrong:

" It is clear that both Notice to Keeper used identical wording".

If so, reply with a one liner telling them the difference.

@Coupon-mad Will do.

The thing I don't understand is that they are saying both are POFA compliant when one isn't and they are clearly differently worded.

Coupon-mad

Show those images and INSIST the complaint is escalated to the Lead Adjudicator because POPLA have lied that the 2 NTKs are "identically worded" when even a child could see they are not. Even the shape of the paragraphs differs so even without reading them, they are clearly not identical.