Total Car Parks - Market Square, Morley - 30 mins overstay - at POPLA

memgrubb

This was initially appealed to the PPC by someone else who had already identified the driver

It was only £1 for an extra 1hr

Initial appeal along these lines

91 yr old, holds a valid government-issued Blue Badge and suffers from severe osteoarthritis, diabetes, and hypertension. He uses a walking stick and is awaiting a total knee replacement.

The ANPR system recorded entering at 12:02:57 and leaving at 14:33:24, a total of 2 hours 30 minutes. The overstay of 30 minutes was not simply extra parking. Due to disability and advanced age, they require additional time exit the car, and later to return and leave. This accounted for approximately 15 minutes on arrival and 15 minutes on departure.

POPLA appeal

Mr XXXXX XXXX, aged 91, holds a valid Blue Badge (XXXXXXXX) and suffers from severe osteoarthritis, diabetes, and hypertension. He requires a stick to walk, has difficulty with stairs, and is awaiting a total knee replacement under the care of Mr Vishal Rajput, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at Spire Dewsbury Clinic. Due to his age and condition, tasks take longer and on this occasion he overstayed the 2-hour free parking limit by only 30 minutes. The extra time would have cost just £1, so no significant financial loss has occurred. In light of his health, mobility issues, advanced age, and genuine need for accessible parking, we respectfully request leniency and cancellation of this charge. Copies of his Blue Badge, consultant’s diagnosis letter, and driving licence (confirming his age) are attached in support.

Their response, also at POPLA

The Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a privately managed car park in Leeds. In this car park there is 1 BPA sign which states that this is a 2-hour free parking car park, and there are numerous warning signs in and around the car park which clearly explain: “2 hours free parking – charges apply to all vehicles after 2 hours – Blue Badge holders must abide by the terms and conditions.”

We have attached under Section B a copy of the Warning, Parkonomy, and BPA signs which are displayed in and around the car park, and photos showing the signs in situ; together with a plan under Section F of where these signs are located. We do not own the car park, so we are also attaching a redacted copy (for confidentiality reasons) of the agreement we have with the landlord, where it clearly says that we are authorised to issue and pursue unpaid Parking Charges (Section G, pages 52 to 57).

This car park has a 2-hour free parking time limit, where customers who remain longer than 2 hours need to pay using Parkonomy, which is advertised on the signs throughout the car park. Section G, page 59 shows Parkonomy bookings received for the site throughout the day, showing the payment platform was working on the date of the contravention.

On 7th August 2025, the appellant’s vehicle was registered by the ANPR camera entering the car park at 12:02:57 and exiting 2 hours and 30 minutes later at 14:33:24. (Please see Section E, pages 45 and 46: the timed and dated photos taken by the ANPR camera system). ZatPark, the system we use to issue and manage our Parking Charges, could not find any valid parking payment for a session in place which covered the vehicle for parking beyond the 2-hour free parking time limit (Section G, page 58). A Parking Charge was therefore issued.

On appeal to us, the appellant confirmed that they were the keeper of the vehicle and explained that they had a Blue Badge permit. In our reply we explained that the Blue Badge scheme is operated mainly in council parking sites. They were parked on private land and thus were required to read and follow the signs displaying the terms of parking, which clearly explain that there is a 2-hour free parking time limit in place, that charges apply to all vehicles after 2 hours, and that the signage outlines that Blue Badge holders must also abide by the terms of parking.

We explained that there are signs displaying Parkonomy as the method of payment to extend the parking session beyond the 2-hour free parking time limit, and that it was the responsibility of the driver to ensure they were aware of and adhered to the displayed terms. As the terms and conditions of the car park were breached, the Parking Charge was issued correctly and we had no option but to decline the appeal.

On appeal to POPLA, the appellant stated that they are of advanced age, hold a valid Blue Badge, and have significant mobility and medical conditions. The appellant did not provide any evidence of this at the time of raising the appeal. As shown in Section E, page 39, they only explained that they had a disabled parking permit, and provided evidence of this.
As explained in our reply to the initial appeal, Blue Badge holders must abide by the terms of the car park as outlined by the signage. Even if parked while displaying a valid Blue Badge, the driver still needed to follow the terms and conditions, and the 2-hour free parking time limit still applied. It was the appellant’s responsibility to provide any supporting evidence at the time of submitting their appeal to ensure that all the circumstances surrounding it could be considered.

Upon reviewing the POPLA appeal, we note that the conditions referenced are pre-existing. The appellant should therefore have taken care to ensure that they would be able to return to the car park and remove the vehicle before the 2-hour free parking time limit was exceeded. The free parking time limit is clearly outlined on the BPA entry sign (Section B, pages 11–12) and on the signs displaying the terms and conditions of parking (Section B, pages 13–20 and 30–32).

The appellant states: “Due to age and condition, tasks take longer and on this occasion the 2-hour free parking limit was exceeded by only 30 minutes.” As explained previously, the terms and conditions of the car park are clearly outlined on signage throughout the site, and it was the appellant’s responsibility to make themselves aware of them and ensure that they parked in adherence to the displayed terms.

We would like to point out that there is another car park nearby to the site, in addition to dedicated disabled parking bays close by which offer up to 4 hours of free parking for Blue Badge holders. The appellant could have used these bays and been entitled to an extra 2 hours of free parking. We cannot comment on why they chose to park in the 2-hour limit car park, but the terms and conditions — including the requirement to pay for parking beyond the 2-hour free parking time limit — apply to all vehicles, including those parked displaying a valid Blue Badge.

The appellant states: “The extra time would have cost just £1, so no significant financial loss has occurred.” They had the option to pay for additional parking on the date of the contravention, by using Parkonomy. We do not need to prove that any loss occurred; the Parking Charge amount is outlined on the signs displaying the terms of parking. By remaining in the car park beyond the consideration period, the appellant accepted the terms of parking. If the appellant did not want to accept the terms and become liable for any Parking Charge as a result of breaching them, they had the option to park at a different site.

Total Car Parks have followed the correct procedures from the issuing of the Parking Charge to the handling of the appeal. The appellant overstayed the 2-hour free parking time limit, the terms and conditions were therefore breached, and the Parking Charge was correctly issued. We believe we were fully justified in declining the appeal.

Final comments to POPLA

Mr XXX XXX is 91 years old, holds a valid government-issued Blue Badge (XXXXXXXXXX), and is under the care of a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at Spire Dewsbury Clinic, awaiting a knee replacement. He suffers from severe osteoarthritis, diabetes, and hypertension, requiring a walking stick and greatly limiting his mobility.

On 7 August 2025, he overstayed the free 2-hour limit by 30 minutes. This breaks down into time taken on arrival and departure (approximately 15 minutes either side) due to his limited mobility, not simply additional parking. The extra payable period would have cost just £1. No significant financial loss occurred. The operator states they “do not need to prove any loss” under ParkingEye v Beavis. However, Beavis concerned a busy retail park with commercial justification. This case is different: minimal financial impact, no commercial harm, and a 91-year-old Blue Badge holder with serious mobility limitations. A £100 penalty is disproportionate and fails to comply with the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments.

In his initial appeal, Mr XXXX XXX provided his Blue Badge, official government proof of disability. Expecting him to disclose sensitive medical history to justify a short overstay is unnecessary, invasive, and potentially contrary to GDPR principles of data minimisation.
The operator’s dismissal of his medical conditions as “pre-existing” is irrelevant. The Equality Act applies to all disabled people, regardless of when their conditions began. The issue is the impact on mobility and daily life. It is unreasonable to expect a 91-year-old with such limitations to return to his vehicle within the same timeframe as a non-disabled person. A reasonable adjustment here would have been to allow a longer grace period.

The operator also refers to alternative car parks nearby. This is irrelevant. The issue before POPLA is whether the charge at Market Square was fair and lawful. A motorist does not have to justify why they chose one car park over another.

For these reasons, the charge is excessive, unfair, and not justified under Beavis. We respectfully request POPLA to allow the appeal and cancel the charge.

Something I thought about adding to the response the operator mentions we didn't provide detailed medical info with the first appeal. But the funny thing is, they never actually say whether that would have changed their decision anyway.

To me, that makes their request irrelevant. A Blue Badge is government-issued proof of disability, which should have been enough on its own.

memgrubb

Also makes me laugh "conditions are pre-existing so you should have allowed more time"

Coupon-mad

Sadly this will lose at POPLA.

Waste of time I'm afraid even though the legal arguments are solid. POPLA do not consider the Equality Act (...which is illegal, but hey, neither do PPCs, so they are all in on the illegality).

The good news is, the courts DO know the law so these arguments would make up a solid defence.

If it was me helping a vulnerable 91 year old, when the POPLA decision is inevitably lost, email as him, giving a new address for service (YOUR ADDRESS). That stops him getting £170 red ink threatogram letters that will spook him into phoning them (see post 4 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread for pictures).

When the POPLA Appeal loses please post it in POPLA DECISIONS.

And this month PLEASE do the government's public consultation. See the thread about it!

memgrubb

Coupon-mad said:

Sadly this will lose at POPLA.

Waste of time I'm afraid even though the legal arguments are solid. POPLA do not consider the Equality Act (...which is illegal, but hey, neither do PPCs, so they are all in on the illegality).

The good news is, the courts DO know the law so these arguments would make up a solid defence.

If it was me helping a vulnerable 91 year old, when the POPLA decision is inevitably lost, email as him, giving a new address for service (YOUR ADDRESS). That stops him getting £170 red ink threatogram letters that will spook him into phoning them (see post 4 of the NEWBIES FAQS thread for pictures).

When the POPLA Appeal loses please post it in POPLA DECISIONS.

And this month PLEASE do the government's public consultation. See the thread about it!

Thanks. I am tempted to try Plan A in the meantime.

On doing some searches...this car park is owned by Leeds City Council but operated by Total Car Parks.Is it worth a shot?

Coupon-mad

Should have done Plan A first, and NOT POPLA at all - did you miss the advice that trying POPLA can and does stop PLAN A from working? 

There is no way TCP are operating for the council. There will be a property agent or a leaseholder.

memgrubb

Coupon-mad said:

Should have done Plan A first, and NOT POPLA at all - did you miss the advice that trying POPLA can and does stop PLAN A from working? 

There is no way TCP are operating for the council. There will be s property agent or a leaseholder.

I missed that yeah but I'm picking this up halfway through and just trying to help in any way I can

Coupon-mad

OK - they've done this wrong. No harm done except it makes Plan A harder.

Find out the site agent, either by Googling the place or there's often a sign near the entrance on site if it's a retail park (I DON'T mean the PPC's signs).

memgrubb

Coupon-mad said:

OK - they've done this wrong. No harm done except it makes Plan A harder.

Find out the site agent, either by Googling the place or there's often a sign near the entrance on site if it's a retail park (I DON'T mean the PPC's signs).

I've checked and there's no signs. Looks like it used to be owned and operated by Leeds City Council, but they have leased it out and the leaseholder has charged TCP with management. Still checking other stuff at the moment, thanks for your help so far

memgrubb

POPLA decision

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver overstayed the free parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they hole a blue badge as they suffer with osteoarthritis, diabetes and hypertension. They explain that they also have mobility issues which they are undergoing medical care for. They advise that the operator has not suffered a significant loss as additional parking would have only cost £1. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a blue badge, a copy of a medical letter and a copy of a driving licence. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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 appellant is being held liable for this PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The notice provided is full compliance as it contains all of the required wording and was sent out within the required time scales. The signs on site advise that two hours free parking is permitted and exceeding this without purchasing additional parking will result in a parking charge of £100. The operator ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two and a half hours. This confirms that the driver exceeded the free period. 

As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the Single Code of Practice. Section 5.2 allows the driver a grace period and Section 4 advises that it can be reasonable to extend this for disabled users. The appellant has provided a blue badge and a medical letter regarding their mobility issues. While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment. If the driver required such a significant period of additional time, they were required to purchase this. 

The court case of Parking Eye V Beavis considered if the amount of a PCN needed to be proportionate to the loss suffered by the operator. The case decided that the amount did not need to be proportionate to the loss as the purpose of the PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. In this case the terms and conditions including the amount of the PCN are clearly displayed on the signs so the driver was made aware from the start that they would pay a PCN of £100 so I cannot consider that it is unreasonable. 

The appellant has provided a copy of a driving licence but the fact that the appellant can driver is not in dispute. If the driver could not park in compliance with the parking restriction they should have removed their vehicle from the car park and found somewhere else to park. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver exceeded the free stay and did not purchase additional time. They 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.

Car1980

Why are you arguing loss?

Coupon-mad

memgrubb said:

POPLA decision

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Richard Beaden

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver overstayed the free parking time.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they hole a blue badge as they suffer with osteoarthritis, diabetes and hypertension. They explain that they also have mobility issues which they are undergoing medical care for. They advise that the operator has not suffered a significant loss as additional parking would have only cost £1. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a blue badge, a copy of a medical letter and a copy of a driving licence. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking 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 appellant is being held liable for this PCN using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). The notice provided is full compliance as it contains all of the required wording and was sent out within the required time scales. The signs on site advise that two hours free parking is permitted and exceeding this without purchasing additional parking will result in a parking charge of £100. The operator ANPR images show that the driver was on site for two and a half hours. This confirms that the driver exceeded the free period. 

As a member of the British Parking Association the operator is required to comply with the Single Code of Practice. Section 5.2 allows the driver a grace period and Section 4 advises that it can be reasonable to extend this for disabled users. The appellant has provided a blue badge and a medical letter regarding their mobility issues. While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment. If the driver required such a significant period of additional time, they were required to purchase this. 

The court case of Parking Eye V Beavis considered if the amount of a PCN needed to be proportionate to the loss suffered by the operator. The case decided that the amount did not need to be proportionate to the loss as the purpose of the PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. In this case the terms and conditions including the amount of the PCN are clearly displayed on the signs so the driver was made aware from the start that they would pay a PCN of £100 so I cannot consider that it is unreasonable. 

The appellant has provided a copy of a driving licence but the fact that the appellant can driver is not in dispute. If the driver could not park in compliance with the parking restriction they should have removed their vehicle from the car park and found somewhere else to park. 

After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver exceeded the free stay and did not purchase additional time. They 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.

I posted this in POPLA DECISIONS. They are breaking the law:

Coupon-mad said:

"While I acknowledge these circumstances and supporting evidence, I cannot consider that it is reasonable to extend a grace period for 30 minutes even as a reasonable adjustment."

Well the law - Equality Act 2010 - says otherwise. Councils allow at least an hour longer.

This is why POPLA isn't fit for purpose. They would need PROPER training on the Equality Act and more.