PCN F1rst Parking company in Sussex

Le_Kirk

LionelMessy said:

@Gr1pr
Received this: What do I do next? Please advise. 
As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of the car park, we are satisfied that the notice was issued correctly in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice and are therefore unable to waiver waive the charge on this occasion. You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA

Jeepers, it is a University and they employ parking sharks who cannot use English grammar

LionelMessy

@Coupon-mad I appealed to POPLA under Others (the parking operator does not have a contract at this site to issue pcns) Now F1rst parking has submitted all the history/evidence from their side and POPLA has given this option : 

Please provide your comments on the operator evidence.

You have 7 days from the operator evidence submission date - 16/09/2025. You will not have opportunity to edit or add further detail once you have submitted your comments.

What comment should I include in this. Please advise

Coupon-mad

Anything you see in their evidence. This stage is covered in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

P.S. i don't read pm's, sorry. No time.

And I rarely even try POPLA as it's so unimportant in the scheme of things.

LionelMessy

@Coupon-mad just PM'ed you the link to google drive. It's quite a lengthy document, and they've provided a pack and evidence. Because my appeal was based on - the parking operator does not have a contract at this site to issue pcns ( in their evidence, they have provided the agreement between themselves and the landowner) 

Do I still go with: No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice as per the Newbies Thread? 

1505grandad

Check that any sign photos exhibited are time and date stamped relevant for the parking event.

LionelMessy

POPLA refused it. Wait/Ignore the letter if they send any?

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Paul E Walker

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator says the driver parked without paying or registering.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant appeals on the following grounds: • The parking operator has no contract authorising it to issue charges in relation to the site. Having seen the parking operator’s response to their appeal, the appellant raises new appeal grounds surrounding their liability for the charge.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The parking operator has provided mock-ups and photos of signs on the site which make clear users must either pay or register for parking. Signs also make clear £60 charges will be issued for breaking the parking terms. The parking operator has also provided photos showing the vehicle was on the site for three hours and 16 minutes on the date in question. Evidence has also been provided which shows searches for the vehicle registration against the payment and registration list returned no results, so the operator’s case is that the driver broke the terms by parking without paying or registering. The appellant appeals on the basis the parking operator has no contract authorising it to issue charges in relation to the site. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) and must follow the associated Code of Practice. Clause 14 of the Code says that, assuming they don’t own site, parking operators must have the authority of landowners to manage parking on them and issue charges for breaking any terms. The operator has provided a copy of a document based on which I’m satisfied it had relevant authority to manage parking on the site on the date in question. Having seen the parking operator’s response to their appeal, the appellant raises new appeal grounds surrounding their liability for the charge. I can only consider appeal grounds raised as part of the initial submission to POPLA because the parking operator can only be expected to have provided evidence in response to those grounds. That being said, a law called the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) allows parking operators transfer liability for charges to the keepers of vehicles as long as certain rules are followed. The evidence in this case shows that a charge notice was sent to the appellant as the keeper which followed the relevant rules, so I’m satisfied the operator is within its rights to pursue the appellant for the charge as the keeper. The evidence shows that the car park’s terms were made clear, and that the driver broke them by parking without paying or registering. I’m satisfied the charge was issued correctly and I’m refusing this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Like I said, POPLA is unimportant and I wouldn't have tried it. Nothing lost but now ignore the threatograms you saw when you read post 4 of the NEWBIES FAQs thread.