POPLA rejected - Confused Newbie

Koiefish

I am a regular visitor to a leisure centre where I consistently park in a disabled bay and correctly display my Blue Badge. However, due to the angle of my vehicle’s dashboard, MET Parking’s ANPR or camera system fails to capture the badge, resulting in parking charge notices.

• On a previous occasion, MET issued a notice, but after I appealed and explained the situation, they cancelled the charge.

• A second notice was issued under similar circumstances. Expecting a similar outcome, I appealed to MET, but this time they rejected it.

• Believing I had a strong case, I then appealed to POPLA, explaining again that the badge was clearly displayed and the issue was due to camera angle. POPLA rejected the appeal.

• Strangely, a third notice under the same conditions was also appealed to POPLA, using the same reasoning, and that appeal was successful.

I have tried to navigate the ‘newbies thread’ on online forums, but due to my disability, I find it extremely difficult to go through the detailed and lengthy posts to identify what applies to my case.

I have now received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus, and I am unsure of what to do next. While I understand that further guidance may be available in the forum posts, my disability makes it hard to access and understand that information fully.

Timeline of Events

• 28 January 2025 – Date of Contravention
  (The incident or alleged parking violation occurred.)

• 03 February 2025 – Notice Issued
  (Parking Charge Notice (PCN) formally issued.)

• 08 February 2025 – Appeal Sent to Operator (MET)
  (You submitted your initial appeal to the parking operator.)

• 27 February 2025 – Appeal Rejected by MET
  (Operator responded, rejecting your appeal.)

• 21 March 2025 – Appeal Submitted to POPLA
  (You escalated the appeal to the independent body, POPLA.)

• 05 June 2025 – POPLA Appeal Rejected
  (POPLA issued its decision, upholding the operator's decision.)

Koiefish

My Original appeal to MET

This was their reply letter

Koiefish

We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course

Operator Name

MET Parking Services - EW

Operator Case Summary

In the appeal to POPLA Mr Sawyer states that his badge was displayed, but that it was not picked up due to the angle of his dashboard. We note XXXX’s comments and attached evidence, however, we would point out that our camera is set higher than eye-level allowing for a greater view, and not at the angle he has demonstrated in his video. Below we have provided an image of the vehicle that was parked next to XXXX for reference of visibility. Given the size of the badge and the high contrast between its light blue colour and the dark grey of the dashboard, we are confident that it would have been clearly visible at the time even if it had been displayed in the manner in which Mr XXXX claims it was: In this instance, the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions. The appeal was declined with the additional discount in line with the Appeals Charter. The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on the signs that are prominently displayed at the entrance to and around the site. These include that vehicles parked in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times. The photographic evidence in Section E demonstrates that the vehicle remained in a disabled bay without a disabled badge clearly displayed in the front windscreen of the vehicle. In light of the above we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and the appeal should be refused.

Koiefish

POPLA assessment and decision

05/06/2025

Verification Code

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Lisa Lea

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for waiting or parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The appellant advised the cameras are positioned at around a 45 degree angle to the vehicles. • The appellants vehicle has a slightly angled dashboard and is at an awkward angle relative to the camera. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in regards to: • Camera angle and video evidence showing the angle of the camera and the design of the dashboard, shows the blue badge is not visible from this vantage point. • Comparative image provided by the operator, showing the different designs make things more visible. • Precedent was set when a previous charge for the same reason was cancelled by the operator in June 2024. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. A video of the badge on the dashboard. 2. Image of different angles of the badge displayed x 2. 3. An image of the sign. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who wait or park in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge. • The appellant advised the cameras are positioned at around a 45 degree angle to the vehicles. Camera angle and video evidence showing the angle of the camera and the design of the dashboard, shows the blue badge is not visible from this vantage point. The appellants vehicle has a slightly angled dashboard and is at an awkward angle relative to the camera. Comparative image provided by the operator, showing the different designs make things more visible. I appreciate the appellants comments and the evidence provided to show the design of their dashboard and acknowledge that different vehicles will allow for different placements of the badges for display. However if the appellant is aware that their badge cannot be seen by a camera due to the design of their car, the responsibility would be on them to place the badge where it is visible from all angles. The appellant could have utilised the pocket on their windscreen to display their badge, to prevent further PCN’s. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The parking operator has provided a site images of the signs in the car park itself. This evidence confirms that there are an adequate amount of signs in the car park, and they are placed sufficiently throughout the car park itself. This satisfies me that if any motorist was to park in this car park, they would be made aware of the requirement to clearly display their blue badge. As such, I am satisfied the operator has complied with The Code. • Precedent was set when a previous charge for the same reason was cancelled by the operator in June 2024. The parking operator has the right to exercise discretion in regard to withdrawing or cancelling a charge, it is outside POPLAs jurisdiction to become involved with a parking operator’s decision in this matter. We are unable to take previous instances into consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist waited or parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge 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. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Gr1pr

Ignore Debt Recovery Plus, powerless debt collectors,  nothing they can do to you except send letters,  IGNORE, do not pay

1) Post a redacted picture of the NTK PCN letter so we can check the alleged contravention 

2) Ideally Post pictures of the signage on site too

They will be in the Popla evidence pack 

3) Post a redacted copy of the popla rejection,  so we can see what they said 

4) Ideally complain about these PCN's to the centre or business,  citing the Equality Act 2010, known as plan A on here , trying to get them all cancelled   ( should have been done as soon as possible,  but never too late  )


Do not panic,  do not worry,  we will help you and advise you 

Koiefish

Thank you for your reply!

Here is the NTK

Koiefish

Here is the signage

Koiefish

The Popla Decision 

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Lisa Lea

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for waiting or parking in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The appellant advised the cameras are positioned at around a 45 degree angle to the vehicles. • The appellants vehicle has a slightly angled dashboard and is at an awkward angle relative to the camera. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in regards to: • Camera angle and video evidence showing the angle of the camera and the design of the dashboard, shows the blue badge is not visible from this vantage point. • Comparative image provided by the operator, showing the different designs make things more visible. • Precedent was set when a previous charge for the same reason was cancelled by the operator in June 2024. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: 1. A video of the badge on the dashboard. 2. Image of different angles of the badge displayed x 2. 3. An image of the sign. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who wait or park in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge. • The appellant advised the cameras are positioned at around a 45 degree angle to the vehicles. Camera angle and video evidence showing the angle of the camera and the design of the dashboard, shows the blue badge is not visible from this vantage point. The appellants vehicle has a slightly angled dashboard and is at an awkward angle relative to the camera. Comparative image provided by the operator, showing the different designs make things more visible. I appreciate the appellants comments and the evidence provided to show the design of their dashboard and acknowledge that different vehicles will allow for different placements of the badges for display. However if the appellant is aware that their badge cannot be seen by a camera due to the design of their car, the responsibility would be on them to place the badge where it is visible from all angles. The appellant could have utilised the pocket on their windscreen to display their badge, to prevent further PCN’s. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The parking operator has provided a site images of the signs in the car park itself. This evidence confirms that there are an adequate amount of signs in the car park, and they are placed sufficiently throughout the car park itself. This satisfies me that if any motorist was to park in this car park, they would be made aware of the requirement to clearly display their blue badge. As such, I am satisfied the operator has complied with The Code. • Precedent was set when a previous charge for the same reason was cancelled by the operator in June 2024. The parking operator has the right to exercise discretion in regard to withdrawing or cancelling a charge, it is outside POPLAs jurisdiction to become involved with a parking operator’s decision in this matter. We are unable to take previous instances into consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist waited or parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge 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. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Gr1pr

Put a written complaint in to Downham Leisure Centre,  mentioning the Equality Act 2010, that your valid blue badge was on display at the time and get them to tell MET to cancel the outstanding PCN , reference  xxxxxxxx

Copy in your local MP and ask them to write to the centre as well,  with concerns over the issues you mentioned,  because the EA2010 is the law and you were entitled to park there

patient_dream

Totally agree with Gr1pr above

MET parking are well known for their antics and POPLA is just a BPA invention which is not fit for purpose .... just like the BPA

Koiefish

Thank you both. I have used ChatGPT to help write letters as advised above. Just stressed what happens if that doesn’t work…