Private parking ticket

Eezana

Hi. I wanted to get an idea on how likely a popla appeal will be successful. I rented a flat which has an associated parking bay since Sep 24. The building has both on street and a gated parking areas. I was away and when I returned I found 3 tickets saying that I'm in the wrong bay and my parking bay is in the gated area. Over the last few months I had several conversation with the parking security as I find other cars on the street bay. I sent them photos of my permit and the cars in the bay. They never stated that this the wrong bay. They now told me that my parking permit is green and hence should be in the gated area. There are no signs anywhere to specify which area I'm supposed to park. When I moved in, the tenancy agent didn't know where is the bay and asked me to confirm it with parking security. I found the street bay and when I asked them they said it is the right one. Unfortunately that was a phone conversation so not recorded. However I have about 80 text messages over the year with photos of the bay complaining about other cars in the bay. Is an appeal with popla likely to be successful as technically I was in the wrong bay. But I'm arguing that I did my best to confirm my parking bay and was away and unable to respond to the tickets. Also there was no way for me.to deduce the correct parking bay if there are no signs to indicate that.

Coupon-mad

Yes that evidence might be enough for POPLA to conclude that you could not have known which bay a green permit is for. POPLA like evidence - it is key - so hit them with the text messages and a copy of the permit and pics of the bay.

Doesn't matter if you lose at POPLA anyway because you'll never pay the PCN, not even at court because that's the perfect 'end game' dispute resolution for consumers and you are a permitted resident.

Which parking firm?

Show us a pic of the bay and the t&cs sign, both with the time & date embedded in the photo because that's what POPLA prefer.

Eezana

Thanks. That is a very helpful reply. The bays are numbered but there are no signs to indicate that there are different permits. There is only one sign posted which I also attached. The firm is called MJB security.

Coupon-mad

Did they send you 3 Notice to Keepers (same thing as a postal PCN)?

Please show us both sides of the NTK.

And your appeal wording you used?

Car1980

Contract is a nonsense and obviously knocked up in Word going by the Calibri font.

Permit Holders Only is the ONLY clear contractual term. It doesn't even say you have to display, only to own one.

Putting extra terms in the small print is a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Saying Permit Holders Only and then Permit Displayers Only is contradictory and the larger term trumps the smaller when "smaller" is about 75% smaller in size.

And the BPA seriously would claim to have audited that shambles?

Eezana

Coupon-mad said:

Did they send you 3 Notice to Keepers (same thing as a postal PCN)?

Please show us both sides of the NTK.

And your appeal wording you used?

I found them on my windscreen, they weren't sent via post. They only have one page.

Coupon-mad

Oh no. And you appealed them all, admitting who was driving?

Thorndorise

Eek, what a shambles of a company - they have NO privacy policy, NO published complaints policy and DO NOT have permission to share you personal data with any third party (i.e. Debt collectors).

To CM's point above - hopefully not admitted being the driver - making it somewhat awkward.

The lack of published complaints policy alone makes them in breach of BPA membership (as does that sign tbh) - there is no way they should be following this up with getting your details from the DVLA.

https://www.mjbfm.co.uk/parking-management

NB they have a link to a privacy policy, just goes to a dead space!

Thorndorise

Thorndorise said:

Eek, what a shambles of a company - they have NO privacy policy, NO published complaints policy and DO NOT have permission to share you personal data with any third party (i.e. Debt collectors).

To CM's point above - hopefully not admitted being the driver - making it somewhat awkward.

The lack of published complaints policy alone makes them in breach of BPA membership (as does that sign tbh) - there is no way they should be following this up with getting your details from the DVLA.

https://www.mjbfm.co.uk/parking-management

NB they have a link to a privacy policy, just goes to a dead space!

Mmm, update, they do have a complaints policy on their site, but you have to go through several steps to find it...not readily accessible, whilst registered with the ICO and have a DPO (same ex-cop that owns and runs the company) - they don't actually have a PP or their ICO number listed anywhere - bit of a shamble imho

Eezana

Coupon-mad said:

Oh no. And you appealed them all, admitting who was driving?

I can't remember what I selected but likely yes. I received the POPLA reply today. Unfortunately it was unsuccessful. Not sure what are the next steps.
This was their reply:
Firstly, I note that the appellant has raised multiple appeals with POPLA. I must advise that POPLA assess all appeals on an impartial case by case basis and as such each Parking Charge Notice (PCN) must be appealed by the motorist separately. In this instance I am only assessing the appeal for POPLA code: ----which was issued to PCN number ---. 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. The signage in place sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. The signs make it clear that this area is for Permit Holders Only and that a charge of £100 will be issued to any vehicles not parked within their allocated bay and not displaying a valid permit. The parking operator has provided images of the appellant's vehicle parked at the site on 6 June 2025 at 18:56. The images show that the appellant’s vehicle was displaying a parking permit for Royal Crescent Bay 43. The parking operator has explained that the area the appellant is parked in is an external area which requires an external permit, the car park that appellant is supposed to park in is accessed by a fob which they would use to access the front door of their apartment which then they can display their royal crescent permit. the space the appellant is parked in is for the housing association to park in. As such, the PCN was issued for not displaying a valid permit. The appellant says they were away from 1 June until 11 June 2025 and upon their return, they discovered three Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) on their vehicle. They feel it is an exploitative punishment issuing three PCNs while they were away. I have reviewed the tickets provided by the appellant and it is not disputed that the appellant was away on the date of the contravention. However, the parking operator would have been unaware of this at the time the PCNs were issued. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 8.3 makes it clear that Parking operators must ensure that they only issue Parking Charges in accordance with their advertised terms on any site. Such terms shall not entitle any operator to issue more than one parking charge in the same calendar day for the same parking event. The PCNs were not issued for the same calendar day and therefore the fact the appellant was away has no impact on the validity of the PCN. The appellant explains that their car was parked in Bay 43, but when they contacted MJB security, they were told this was the wrong bay and their allocated parking space is inside the car park, not on the street. They explain that when they moved to their current residence on 30 September 2024, the agent said the MJB would tell them where their parking bay was and they were not issued a fob to access the car park. The appellant say they have only recently contacted the agency to obtain a fob for the car park after being informed of this issue. The appellant says after they received their temporary permit on 30 September 2024, they confirmed with the concierge and MJB security that their designated bay was the one on the street and since then, they have parked in this bay and their car is currently parked there until they have access to the car park. They say since September they have encountered multiple issues with other vehicles occupying the bay and contacted MJB security numerous times by phone and text messages regarding this, they also sent them multiple photographs of cars parked there. They tell us they met with the MJB on several occasions to discuss the fact that other cars occupy the bay and at no point did anyone inform them that this was not their assigned bay. They say additionally, they sent several text messages, including a photograph of the temporary permit on 5 October 2024, at the beginning of their tenancy, again, nothing was mentioned about this being the incorrect bay. The appellant says for the past nine months, they have been using this bay without any indication that it was not their designated space. They say this misunderstanding was not their fault, as they took all necessary steps to clarify the location of their parking bay and followed the instructions provided by MJB security and the concierge. These tickets have clearly been issued in error and should be cancelled. I acknowledge the appellant's detailed account of events and have reviewed the evidence they have provided, whilst it is clear that the appellant genuinely believed that the bay they were parking in way their bay, the fact remains it was not. I must explain, 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. After reviewing the circumstances, I have referred the case back to the parking operator, explaining the circumstances surrounding the parking event, and to ask it to consider cancelling the PCN. It is the parking operator’s decision whether to cancel a PCN or not. In this case, the parking operator has said it wishes to pursue the charge. Therefore, I can only assess the appeal based on the evidence provided. The parking operator has explained that the appellant parked in 43, but the permit clearly states 43 Royal Crescent, which is in the underground car park. It says the fob they use to open the main door of the building has the car park accesses on. Additionally, the parking operator does not have a list of everyone's bay locations, it simply prints the permits and hands them to the concierge. It asserts that it is the Agent's responsibility to liaise with the tenant to find out which bay is available, and then advise the resident. POPLA cannot consider third party disputes. By parking on site, the appellant entered into a parking contract with the operator and was responsible for complying with the terms and conditions of parking, regardless of the circumstances. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and by not displaying a valid permit, these terms and conditions were not met. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

We can't read that wall of text. But ignore.

If you'd appealed them all as keeper (came here first) they would have all been cancelled.