Car Parking Partnership (CPP) at Leeds Beckett University – Rose Bowl Surface Car Park

Stefano123

Hi all,

First POPLA reject since the new CoP and it is awful and flawed. it was impossible to comply with their payment system.

Background:

• PCN issued: 22 January 2025

• Alleged breach: Not paying for sufficient parking time

• Duration parked: 2h 21min

• Amount paid: £1.70 (system-generated fee, paid via contactless)

• Appeal to POPLA: Based on unclear signage, contradictory payment instructions, and failure of the system to allow tariff adjustment

• POPLA Decision (8 May 2025): Appeal refused

Grounds of My Appeal (summarised):

1. Payment machine failed to allow adjustment – I paid the amount displayed (£1.70) via contactless as pay on exit. CPP’s own user guide submitted in evidence only explains how to pay with coins using a Pay & Display ticket system. There are no instructions for contactless or for manually changing the tariff when using a card or any alert that the tariff should be manually changed .

2. The machine accepted the payment without warning of underpayment, and no option was provided to amend the amount. How can a driver comply if the machine won’t let them?

3. Contradictory signage on-site. The surface car park (manual tariff) and covered car park (automated system) are side by side, under the same operator, but function differently. No clarification provided.

4. Consumer protection law: A misleading omission under the CPRs 2008 – drivers weren’t given the material info needed to make an informed choice.

5. BPA CoP non-compliance: Clauses 6.1.2(a) and 7.1 – no clear instructions; ambiguity caused by ANPR presence implying automation.

6. Payment was made in good faith – the system failure is not the driver’s fault. Yet a £100 charge is being demanded.

POPLA’s Reasoning:

• They accept I paid £1.70 in good faith.

• But they say “drivers must track their own stay” and that “there is no indication the system is automated”. There is however no signs that state that are clearly visible. 

• They dismiss Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking and consumer protection arguments entirely.

• They say the signage was adequate and that because I paid, it proves the signs were visible.

• The operator has “met the Code of Practice” just by sticking a sign near a machine.

Why I Think the Decision is Wrong:

• The machine showed a price, accepted payment, and provided no chance or instructions or warnings to change it. That’s the crux of it. If a system gives you a price and takes your money, how are you meant to know it’s incorrect?

• CPP’s own evidence proves that tariff adjustment isn’t possible with card payments.

• The POPLA assessor ignored the system design flaw and shifted all responsibility onto the driver — even though they acknowledged I acted in good faith.

• This is a textbook case of impossibility of compliance.

• £100 for a system fault is clearly disproportionate.

Next Steps:

I’ve read that POPLA decisions are final, but I’m thinking of:

• Filing a complaint with the BPA for Code breaches.

• Contacting the DVLA re: misuse of keeper data under POFA 2012.

• Seeking advice from Trading Standards or Citizens Advice.

• Preparing for possible court proceedings (should it come to that).

Questions for the Forum:

1. Has anyone successfully fought back after a flawed POPLA decision like this?

2. Would it be worth sending a complaint to the BPA or DVLA now?

3. If this ends up going to small claims, would a judge likely side with me based on the impossibility of compliance?

4. Should I respond further to CPP, or just wait to see if they try court?

Grateful for any advice, similar experiences, or guidance on next steps!

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

• Filing a complaint with the BPA for Code breaches.

• Contacting the DVLA re: misuse of keeper data under POFA 2012.

• Seeking advice from Trading Standards or Citizens Advice.

• Preparing for possible court proceedings (should it come to that).

Only that final point is relevant. Await a claim: your points about misleading omissions are correct.

Certainly don't go anywhere near the CAB, who treat scam parking charges as if they are a debt and even suggest victims could 'pay under protest' then sue. Utter madness.

Gr1pr

Popla is the final APPEAL stage,  but its not the final stage or step

The next steps are the pre court steps, debt collectors letters followed by an LoC,  Letter of Claim   ( LBC  )

As explained in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

After the LoC may come an N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

Then you should study the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  and defend by adapting the defence template to suit your case

If it gets to an actual hearing in civil court,  that is usually the final stage,  with an outcome   ( Judgment   )

Anyone trying to second guess a court outcome would be advised to take up counting sheep, or be a clairvoyant 

Stefano123

POPLA rejected my appeal, largely on the basis that by remaining on the site after making payment, I had accepted the contract. They wrote:

“By making payment and remaining on the car park for 2 hours and 21 minutes, the contract offered by the parking operator was accepted.”

But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a Pay-on-Exit system works! You don't stay on site if you pay on exit!

Unlike a Pay-and-Display setup, where payment is made before parking, in Pay-on-Exit you pay as you leave — the fee is presented at the end of your stay, just before exiting. In my case, I went straight to the machine at the end of my visit, entered my registration, and paid the amount shown (£1.70) using contactless. There was no “remaining on site after payment” — I was leaving!

More importantly, the system presented an incorrect fee, gave no instructions for adjusting the tariff, and provided no warning that the amount was wrong. There was no opportunity to “reject” or “renegotiate” anything — the system accepted my payment and let me go.

I made this very clear in my appeal:

1.4 “The only visible and prominent signage the driver saw read ‘Pay on Exit.’ This led the driver directly to the payment machine after their stay…”

1.8 “The Respondent has misled motorists into believing that no further action was necessary beyond inputting their registration number and paying the displayed fee…”

2.3 “The driver had no reasonable opportunity to be alerted to any alleged shortfall in payment, meaning that no legally binding contract can be said to exist.”

Despite this, POPLA treated the situation as if I had parked, paid in advance, then stayed too long — completely ignoring how the payment system actually works. It’s hard not to conclude that the appeal was either misunderstood or not read properly.

Gr1pr

Then you make your arguments when defending a future court claim 

Umkomaas

You could try a complaint to POPLA's Chief Adjudicator John Gallagher, headed up 'Serious Adjudication Error'. 

Stefano123

I’ve filed a formal complaint with POPLA. Really really annoyed that people cannot follow a clearly laid out professional appeal. 

In both my appeal and the operator’s own evidence, it was clear the terminal was not set up to let motorists adjust the tariff or see the correct one. The assessor completely misunderstood this and applied Pay-and-Display logic to a Pay-on-Exit situation, which undermines the entire decision. 

I’ve asked for a formal review of whether the assessor even read the appeal properly, and for it to be referred to their Chief Adjudicator.

Will update if I hear anything back — but this feels like a textbook example of why POPLA’s quality control needs to improve.