C.U.P Enforcement - 'Parking' in a 'No parking area' - POPLA Appeal - Unsuccessful

Coupon-mad

Vikom04 said:

Good evening you legends,

I hope you're all well.

I've come with a query regarding a NTK which was received recently. I'll be sending the online appeal tonight, or first thing in the morning, so it falls within the 28 day period (beginning day after the notice was issued - lots of life admin has kept me from doing this sooner but it's now at the top of the pile.) 

Background context - The Driver (TD) pulled over into the bay, marked with double yellows, to pick me up from town. TD had the hazards on and did not leave the vehicle at any point. Total time there was approx. 7 minutes at a guess. I'll also be doing a SAR to see what time stamps they have as the ones on the NTK are illegible. TD's 3 year old son was in the back of the car, having a meltdown so was dealing with that too. 

The Keeper (TK) (who may or may not have been TD) is also 6 months pregnant and considered at high risk due to pre-eclampsia as they suffered a miscarriage earlier this year. (N.B - I'm only mentioning this as I'm wondering if this will give any more credence to the appeal as the registered keeper due to the stress it is, and will, cause whilst dealing with it, impacting her health and putting the pregnancy at risk. TK also works full-time in a stressful job, and has two young children.

My understanding was you could briefly pull over onto double yellows for picking up and setting down. However, their signage specifically prohibits this. Of course, I only saw this when I subsequently went back to get some photos, and I imagine TD at the time didn't see the signage either.

No correspondence has been made with CUP Enforcement as of yet, so TD not identified.


I've seen the template appeal on the newbies thread, and I've also searched the forum for previous CUP cases BUT I've found that the NTK wording has been updated since this post ( https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80413396/#Comment_80413396 )
 and on the NTK letter, it specifically refers to PoFA Paragraph 9.


I'm wondering f there was anything else more specific I could include in the appeal, or if any of you parking legends have any thoughts on this?

I've included a copy of the NTK and also the area of the parking and a close up of the sign.

Thank you so much for your help and time.

Best Regards,

Vikom

Shocking entrapment.

kryten3000 said:

I have just attended court with another victim of this "trap" location who stopped for 30s with only the left wheels over the DYL. Sadly they outed themselves as the driver and didn't do POPLA so were dragged to a hearing by CUPS and DCB Legal.

Case Dismissed. The judge's open remark directed at the Claimant's rep was "what an extraordinary case to bring" 

Coupon-mad said:

Nicely done. 

POPLA'S JOKE DECISION UPDATE

Vikom04 said:

thread link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6571966/c-u-p-enforcement-parking-in-a-no-parking-area-popla-appeal-unsuccessful/p1

CUP Enforcement ripping people off at a notorious entrapment roadway with no consideration period, double yellows not double reds, and hidden CCTV cameras high on a building.

Scammery at its worst, IMHO

Decision: Unsuccessful

Assessor Name: Jamie Macrae

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parking in a no parking area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided an extensive document detailing their grounds of appeal, I have summarised these below

 • The appellant has mentioned different POPLA appeal.

 • The PCN has not been issued correctly in regard to a no parking area.

 • Not The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 compliant as personal data has been accessed unnecessarily. 

• No evidence of landowner authority.

 • The evidence of the parking conditions signage is generic and not specific to the site.

After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal, and expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided correspondence from the parking operator, and a copy of their initial appeal to the parking operator, and photos of the site as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single stage appeal service, 

BLAH BLAH RUBBISH SNIPPED 

The signage within the site informs motorists parking is not allowed at any time, and if these terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be issued.

The parking operator has provided time stamped images of the vehicle within the site on question, time from 15:10:33 to 15:12:03, the vehicle is positioned within the no parking area, I will refer to this below.

BLAH BLAH RUBBISH SNIPPED

The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024.

Both parties have provided photos of the site in question. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms.

I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign.

Entrance signs are an important part of establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers who wish to use the site. The amount of the PCN is sufficiently clear within the parking operator’s signage. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and conditions.

It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them, stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site.

Whether the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them.

Section 22.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” The signs within the car park feature a camera logo, and states: “PLEASE BE AWARE, ANPR/CCTV CAMERAS MAY BE USED ON THIS SITE”. I would therefore be satisfied the operator has made it clear that camera technology is in place to manage the site in question.

The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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.

In this case as parking is allowed within site, the allowed consideration period is whilst driving, as the entrance sign to the site informs motorists that no parking is allowed.

As the motorist stopped within the no parking area, no consideration period is afforded.

The appellant appears to be disputing the vehicle parked within the site on the day, however, intentionally remaining stationary doesn't necessarily entail the driver exiting the vehicle. Whether someone is considered to have 'parked' rather than merely 'stopped' or 'waited' is determined on a case-by-case basis.

However, in the context of parking disputes, the terms 'parking' and 'waiting' are largely interchangeable. This means that a driver who 'waits' at a location for their own reasons is also considered to have 'parked' at that location. I acknowledge the appellant's dissatisfaction with the parking operator's handling of their initial appeal, notably the parking operator mentioning double yellow lines. However, any customer service matters related to the operator's response fall outside of POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised terms and conditions. Any concerns regarding customer service should be addressed directly with the parking operator.

While the double yellow lines part of the vehicle parked within does appear to be public land, the vast majority of the appellant’s vehicle was parked within the boundary of the site managed by the parking operator, which the parking operator has provided a map of the site confirming this.

The site in question does not allow parking at any time, a motorist has the option to reject the terms offered, and not park, or remain parked within the site, there is a contractual offer.

The motorist became bound by the terms and conditions of the site by parking, waiting, or staying at the location for during the times mentioned within the PCN.

Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case the parking operator have provided a signed agreement between themselves and the owner of the land, confirming the relevant authority is in place for the parking operator to manage the site. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that parking within a no parking area, regardless of the reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By choosing to park within a no parking area the motorist has accepted the potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have not found any information that has a material impact on my assessment of the PCN.

After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist parked within a no parking area, 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.

I mean ... that's a total embarrassment.  POPLA you should be ashamed.

This is not a no-stopping zone. You do not have to (and cannot possibly) read contractual signs whilst driving.

The driver DID leave within 2 minutes. They DID reject the nonsense contract.

This sort of covert CCTV surveillance (that often films entire public streets, pedestrians, roads et al) must be banned by the MHCLG asap. You left after LESS THAN TWO MINUTES!

This is the nub of the scam, enabled by the BPA and POPLA:

"As the motorist stopped within the no parking area, no consideration period is afforded"

'ZERO' consideration period is impossible in a contract law situation. It's being wrongly treated the same as a no-stopping zone.

MHCLG ... please sort it out.

Vikom04

It's disgraceful. That was exactly my thoughts. No parking is not the same as no stopping.

The "contract" on offer is a void contract - there's no consideration and it's such a poorly marked area with inadequate signage. Its' a shambles that some POPLA assessors are so ill-informed.


Cue the next several months of toilet paper from debt collectors. 

kryten3000

" I can see from the evidence pack there is an entrance sign."

No, there is no entrance sign, it's a layby.

Gloglow1

Vikom04 said:

It's disgraceful. That was exactly my thoughts. No parking is not the same as no stopping.

The "contract" on offer is a void contract - there's no consideration and it's such a poorly marked area with inadequate signage. Its' a shambles that some POPLA assessors are so ill-informed.


Cue the next several months of toilet paper from debt collectors. 

Just wanted to check how this has progressed for you with cup? My unsuccessful popla appeal at same spot has come through too. 

Have you written to mp at all? Have you had to go through court stage? 

It’s utter madness with this one and what popla think they are seeing, no grace period, no time to pull in and check signs - it’s not allowed and they don’t have exact period of ‘parking’ - and it’s not even a car park!! 

If there’s anything you’ve done with your ticket that has helped pls let me know. I’d really like to resolve this without more angst - if there’s such a chance :-/

ChirpyChicken

If you get a court claim you just deal with 
They wont have had a court claim yet
It really is no angst at all

Coupon-mad

Vikom04 said:

It's disgraceful. That was exactly my thoughts. No parking is not the same as no stopping.

The "contract" on offer is a void contract - there's no consideration and it's such a poorly marked area with inadequate signage. Its' a shambles that some POPLA assessors are so ill-informed.

Cue the next several months of toilet paper from debt collectors. 

It's very important that people like you tell the Government that you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised.

AND THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED.

DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

BETTER TO GO TO COURT.

THE ONLY WAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE COURT CLAIMS IS TO BAN FEE ENHANCEMENT COMPLETELY AT PRE-ACTION STAGE SO THAT STAGE IS COVERED BY THE FULL PCN SUM, HAS VALUE TO CONSUMERS AND IT IS FINALLY SEEN AS CHEAPER TO ENGAGE.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now. Please do this Consultation by August:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1