Secure Parking Solutions - failed appeal. Do I have hope?

V8VVRR

Hi everyone, (using ChatGPT to make this easier to read) I’m looking for advice on a private parking fine I received shortly after moving into a new flat. It was issued by Secure Parking Solutions (SPS), and while I’ve already appealed and been rejected, I’m now deciding whether to escalate it to POPLA. Here's the full timeline and context:

---

Timeline:

• 22 May 2025 – I moved into the property. I was given a resident parking permit, but there was no information provided by the letting agent or landlord about needing a separate visitor permit or pre-authorising vehicles.

• 29 May 2025 – I parked my own vehicle in a visitor bay while unloading furniture during the move-in process.
  → On that same day, I was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by SPS for not displaying a valid visitor permit.

• Early June 2025 – I initially appealed, wrongly claiming the vehicle belonged to a family member. I’ve since corrected this and confirmed I was the owner and driver. I’ve taken full responsibility since.

• 18 July 2025 – I submitted a full formal appeal with:

  • Proof of tenancy and move-in date

  • Confirmation I was the driver

  • A photo of my car with the valid resident permit

  • Evidence that I’ve since obtained a visitor permit and am now compliant

• 23 July 2025 – SPS rejected the appeal, saying the vehicle wasn’t on their pre-authorised list and the PCN was correctly issued. They acknowledged there was no malicious intent but upheld the fine regardless.

---

Current Fine Status:

• £60 discounted rate (available until 6 August 2025, 14 days after the rejection)

• Will increase to £100 if not paid or successfully appealed after that

---

My questions:

• Has anyone successfully appealed a case like this via POPLA?

• Does the lack of visitor permit info at move-in strengthen my case?

• Will POPLA penalise me for initially claiming the car was a family member’s, even though I later corrected it?

• Should I raise the issue with the property manager or letting agent, since they failed to inform me?

This feels like an honest mistake caused by poor communication, not an intentional breach. I’ve done everything by the book since and just want to resolve this fairly.

Any advice or similar experiences would be massively appreciated — thank you!

James_Poisson

It's not a"fine" it's a charge for breach of contract.

POPLA won't be interested in any story of what happened on the day they only deal with procedure, process, signage, landowner authority etc.

You should take it up with the idiots that contracted the parking scammers who are supposed to be there protecting parking for residents and residents visitors, not just arbitrarily posting charges for their own financial gain and no other purpose.

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

• Should I raise the issue with the property manager or letting agent, since they failed to inform me?

Yes.

Search the forum for Jopson Homeguard.

That case is your authority. Read it. You'd win in court but not at POPLA as it isn't independent and doesn't apply the proper case law about unloading at residences.

Do NOT even try POPLA. Ignore it and the £170 threatograms. Forget the discount offer.

Read the 4th then 2nd posts of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST.

Car1980

• A photo of my car with the valid resident permit

I don't understand. Why did you get a ticket then?

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

• A photo of my car with the valid resident permit

I don't understand. Why did you get a ticket then?

Stopping out of a bay to unload. Just like Miss Jopson, Very easy to defend.

V8VVRR

Car1980 said:

• A photo of my car with the valid resident permit

I don't understand. Why did you get a ticket then?

Yes.
I was meant to have 1x Parking Petmit AND 1x Visitor Pass, but the Landlord never applied for the latter, and the letting agency didn't inform me of this.

1x Parking Permit for my allocated parking spot - I had Car #1 parked there, all fine.

I parked Car #2 in a Visitor Bay without a Visitor Pass, hence the fine.

This was the sign:

V8VVRR

Coupon-mad said:

Car1980 said:

• A photo of my car with the valid resident permit

I don't understand. Why did you get a ticket then?

Stopping out of a bay to unload. Just like Miss Jopson, Very easy to defend.

So, the plan is:

1. Send the below response to the site owner, which I predict they'll refuse to assist, as when I informed them of the fine, I merely requested a visitor's pass. Not once did they offer to cancel.

I hope you're well.

I’m following up on a message I sent previously regarding visitor parking. As mentioned, a visitor received a parking fine after using one of the visitor bays on 29 May 2025, shortly after I moved into the property on 22 May 2025.

At the time, I was not made aware that a separate visitor permit or pre-authorisation was required. I was issued a resident parking permit upon move-in, but there was no guidance provided about visitor parking procedures or how to register a vehicle.

Since then, I’ve obtained a visitor permit to ensure this doesn’t happen again. However, the parking operator rejected the appeal for the PCN, and the charge has now increased to £100.

---

I’m kindly requesting:

Would you be willing to:

• Confirm that no visitor parking or pre-authorisation instructions were provided to me at move-in
  or

• Contact the parking company directly to request cancellation of the PCN based on the timing and circumstances?

Your support would be greatly appreciated, and I believe it could help resolve this matter fairly without further escalation.

Please let me know if you need any documents from me, such as the tenancy agreement or a copy of the PCN.

2. Try POPLA with the Miss Jopson argument.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am appealing against Parking Charge Notice [PCN Number] issued by Secure Parking Solutions Ltd (SPS) in relation to an incident on 29 May 2025. While signage was present stating "permit holders and pre-authorised vehicles only," I submit that no contravention occurred and the charge is invalid due to the following legal and procedural grounds:

---

1. No Breach – Unloading at a Residential Property Is Not Parking (Jopson v Homeguard)

The vehicle was stopped temporarily in a visitor bay to assist with unloading furniture during move-in on 29 May 2025. This was a brief, purposeful activity essential to occupation of the property, not an act of parking for convenience.

This principle is supported by the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Oxford County Court), in which His Honour Judge Harris QC ruled that:

"Unloading in the course of moving in is not parking in the usual sense of the word and does not constitute a breach of terms.”

This judgment is directly applicable here. The stop was not a misuse of a parking facility but a necessary part of accessing a residential property, and therefore not subject to parking terms in the usual way.

---

2. Failure to Communicate Permit Requirements to Resident

I had moved into the property only seven days prior to the date of the PCN (on 22 May 2025). While I was issued a resident permit, I was not informed by the letting agent, landlord, or SPS of any requirement to:

• Obtain a separate visitor permit

• Register a vehicle for pre-authorisation

• Follow a different process for visitor bays

This omission meant I had no opportunity to comply with the displayed terms, even if I had read them. A valid contract cannot be formed where compliance is impossible or where key procedural information is not made available to the party allegedly bound by it.

---

3. Signage Does Not Clearly Define Procedures or Consequences

The signage states only that parking is permitted for:

“Permit holders and pre-authorised vehicles”

It does not:

• Define who may issue pre-authorisation (landlord, SPS, agent?)

• Explain how visitors may obtain authorisation or a permit

• Specify any penalties, let alone the £100 charge now demanded

Therefore, even if the sign was visible, it was not sufficient to establish a legally binding contract, particularly in a residential setting involving a newly arrived tenant.

---

4. Disproportionate and Unfair Charge – Beavis Test Not Satisfied

In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Supreme Court ruled that a parking charge must:

• Be clearly communicated

• Serve a legitimate commercial or management interest

• Not be penal or unfair

In this case, there was:

• No obstruction or misuse

• No revenue loss

• No clarity about the charge at the time of stopping

The £100 charge is disproportionate, especially considering the temporary, move-related nature of the stop and the failure of the managing agent to provide necessary permit instructions.

---

Conclusion

The vehicle was stopped briefly and for a legitimate purpose at a residential address, during a move-in period, without any intent to misuse the car park. The parking operator has failed to:

• Demonstrate a fair and enforceable contract

• Provide adequate instructions for compliance

• Acknowledge case law that directly protects residents in similar circumstances

I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and instruct Secure Parking Solutions Ltd to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.

V8VVRR

A tad annoying I can't modify posts, but the POPLA message revised:

My Appeal Summary

I am appealing this parking charge on the following grounds:

1. I was not properly informed that a visitor vehicle needed to be pre-authorised.

2. The signage fails to provide sufficient information on how to comply.

3. I was briefly unloading at my residence – Jopson v Homeguard applies.

4. There is no legitimate interest in penalising a resident’s guest for a short, harmless stop.

5. The amount demanded is excessive and disproportionate.

---

1. I was not informed that I needed to pre-authorise a visitor vehicle

At the time of the PCN, I had recently moved into the property and parked temporarily to unload furniture. I had not been informed by my landlord or letting agent that a visitor vehicle needed to be pre-authorised or that a separate visitor permit was required.

I raised this issue with the letting agent after receiving the charge, and they acknowledged my request to understand the process. This supports my case that I acted in good faith and had no intent to breach any rules — I simply wasn’t informed of the procedure.

---

2. The signage fails to adequately inform drivers of how to comply

While the sign at the site mentions that parking is only allowed for “pre-authorised vehicles” or those displaying a “valid permit,” it fails to explain:

• How pre-authorisation works

• Who is responsible for it (e.g. resident vs landlord)

• Whether it can be done at the time of parking or must be arranged in advance

• Whether visitors are allowed

• Whether there is a grace period

• What constitutes compliance for guests

Although the sign does include a phone number and postal address, this is not sufficient for real-time decision-making. A contact number is only useful if the process is explained — which it isn’t. Most importantly, no steps are provided that would allow a driver to comply before exiting the vehicle.

The BPA Code of Practice (Section 19.3) states that signs “must be clear and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” This sign fails that test. No visitor without prior knowledge could be expected to know how to comply.

---

3. I was briefly unloading – Jopson v Homeguard applies

In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), Judge Harris ruled that short stops for residential unloading — such as carrying furniture — do not constitute ‘parking’ in the contractual sense.

This was a temporary, legitimate stop to assist with a move-in, at a time when I was unfamiliar with the site’s procedures. My stop caused no obstruction, and I acted within what the court in Jopson defined as a reasonable and implied easement for residents and their guests.

---

4. There is no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge in this context

The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) upheld a charge only because of a specific commercial context — a shopping centre with a need to prevent overstays. That logic does not apply here.

This is a residential site. I was a guest unloading at a resident’s address. There was no congestion, no abuse, no financial loss, and no commercial purpose for strict turnover of bays. Therefore, there is no legitimate interest in issuing a £100 charge for a short, harmless stop.

---

5. The £100 charge is excessive and disproportionate

The charge of £100 is clearly punitive. Even Secure Parking Solutions acknowledge this by offering a reduced rate of £60 if paid early — further undermining the argument that this amount reflects any genuine loss or cost incurred.

Given the circumstances — a brief unloading stop, no signage instructing how to comply, no prior knowledge of the authorisation system — this charge is unjustifiable and unenforceable.

---

Conclusion

I respectfully ask POPLA to uphold this appeal based on the following:

• I was not made aware of the authorisation requirements at the time

• The signage does not provide enough information to understand or comply

• My stop qualifies under the precedent set in Jopson v Homeguard

• Beavis does not apply in this residential context

• The £100 charge is excessive and not reflective of any real loss or legitimate interest

---

Evidence Provided:

• Photograph of the signage in the car park

• Copy of the PCN letter

• Screenshot/email of my inquiry to the letting agent

• Reference to Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016)

• Reference to ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) (for distinction)

Coupon-mad

As I said:

"You'd win in court but not at POPLA as it isn't independent and doesn't apply the proper case law about unloading at residences.

Do NOT even try POPLA. Ignore it and the £170 threatograms. Forget the discount offer.

Read the 4th then 2nd posts of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST."

James_Poisson

Sorry can't see anything in that POPLA appeal that will work POPLA don't consider mitigation or what happened on the day only process, procedure, signage, contracts etc.

Also you keep using the terms "fine" and "penalty" you won't find those definitions on any sign or paperwork, and using them when communicating with the landlord for example legitimises the charges and they are unlikely to help in my experience.