POPLA Appeal First Draft - Can someone review please?

mikechia

Hi all,

Would anyone have time to check over my POPLA appeal for me please? Here is the link to the Word Doc (ready to save out as a PDF): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pblujqu7td7cxa64l27px/POPLA-Appeal.docx?rlkey=sfsrbkrmsft16k7yll8t1f6ki&st=vgc83ps6&dl=0

I have mainly used text from other successful POPLA appeals. I've explored the forum as much as I can for similar situations (particularly with Premier Park Ltd at the Royal Gatehouse Tenby).

My main argument is about Grace Periods, but I have included other arguments. Kindly let me know if I should be adding more detail, re-arranging my argument points, or including/excluding any of the points.

Thanks in advance!

1505grandad

"I have mainly used text from other successful POPLA appeals."

Not many regulars will click on unknown links so perhaps copy POPLA over several posts will be helpful.

A heads-up  -  are you quoting/using the ppss CoP which is the latest joint single CoP to use:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

mikechia

Hi – thanks for getting back to me.

1505grandad said:

A heads-up  -  are you quoting/using the ppss CoP which is the latest joint single CoP to use:- [LINK]

No, it seems I may have been using out-of-date information but have now reviewed it and tried to make appropriate edits to include the ppss CoP.

Is your suggestion to paste the full POPLA appeal here? I can try and do that below!

---

POPLA Appeal – Premier Park Ltd

Vehicle Registration: [REDACTED]

POPLA Verification Code: [REDACTED]

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 27/08/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Premier Park Ltd. – was submitted and acknowledged on 24/09/2025 but subsequently rejected by email dated 18/10/2025.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1)    Grace periods – Clause 5 & Annex B – Grace and Consideration Periods, Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1 (arrival observation and ≥10‑minute exit grace) not applied.

2)    Entrance & on‑site signage – not prominent, clear or legible (Clause 3 & Annex A – Signage and Information Requirements, Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1); £100 not in large text; poor lighting; elevated mounting; indistinct bays/boundary.

3)    No keeper liability – POFA Sch.4 para 9 defects (no “period of parking”; no clear “amount of unpaid parking charge”; creditor identification).

4)    No landowner authority – Clause 14 – Relationship with Landowner and Written Authority Requirements (require signed, current, unredacted contract).

5)    Failure of proof – operator has not produced PDT machine logs/tariff showing what £2 purchased and when it expired.

6)    ICO/ANPR compliance – Clause 7 – Camera Images (ANPR) and Data Protection Compliance (DPIA, privacy notices, necessity/proportionality) not evidenced.

7)    ANPR reliability – known “drive‑in/drive‑out”/clock sync issues; cameras record perimeter movements, not parking.

8)    Planning/Advertising consent – put to strict proof that poles/signage have consent where required.

9)    Consumer fairness & transparency – CRA 2015 & CPRs 2008.

 

1. Clause 5 & Annex B – Grace and Consideration Periods (Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1)

Extract (Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice, BPA & IPC v1.1 – Feb 2025, paraphrased for clarity):

·       Operators must allow the driver a reasonable observation period on arrival to find a space, read the terms and decide whether to stay or leave.

·       After a parking contract ends, a minimum 10‑minute grace period must be allowed to depart the site before enforcement.

Earlier BPA guidance – still endorsed – clarifies that observation and grace periods are distinct concepts (see Kelvin Reynolds, ‘Good car parking practice includes grace periods’).

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”

Application to this case: The ANPR duration of 2h 34m includes arrival and exit time. With two hours paid, the remaining ~34 minutes fall within grace allowances. Treating all ANPR time as chargeable ‘parking’ breaches Clause 5 and Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1, which explicitly require both a consideration period on arrival and at least ten minutes of grace to depart after a paid stay..

Visibility towards dusk: As the driver returned, visibility was beginning to reduce. Signs are high‑mounted and unlit; more time is needed to read the terms.  The operator must show legibility at the material time, not just daylight promotional photos.

 

2. Clause 3 & Annex A – Signage and Information Requirements (Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1)

Extract (Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (BPA & IPC v1.1 – Feb 2025, paraphrased for clarity):

·       Clause 3 and Annex A require entrance signs to display ‘Private Land’, operator name and ATA logo, state if payment is required and how, and be visible in darkness by lighting or retro-reflective material. Clause 3.2 also obliges operators to ensure an entrance sign is visible on the approach to the car park and readable from a moving vehicle, using retro-reflective or illuminated materials where enforcement continues after dusk.

·       Signs must be conspicuous and legible; the core charge must be clearly brought to drivers’ attention.

·       Signs must be readable in hours of enforcement (including darkness) by lighting/retro‑reflective materials.

[IMAGE]

Figure C1 – Royal Gatehouse signage (context). Elevated mounting; long viewing distance; dense small print; £100 charge not prominent; tiny text inconsistent with Beavis.

 

Entrance sign & bays: No compliant entrance sign is evidenced; bays/boundary are indistinct. Without a clear entrance sign and obvious baying, the supposed contract was not properly offered or accepted.

Beavis comparison: Unlike the unusually prominent ParkingEye signs in Beavis, Premier Park’s charge is buried in small print. The operator has not shown night‑time legibility.

 

4. POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 – Keeper Liability

Key statutory requirements: The NtK must specify the period of parking (not just entry/exit times), state the total amount of the unpaid parking charge,
identify the creditor, and include the keeper‑liability warning. This remains unaffected by the Single Code; Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 remains the only legislation creating keeper liability and the operator has failed to meet its requirements.

Defects: Premier Park’s NtK specifies only ANPR in/out times; it does not state a parking period. It also fails to state the unpaid charge as a single amount, merely listing “discounted £60” vs “full £100”. Keeper liability therefore cannot arise under Schedule 4.

 

5. Clause 14 – Relationship with Landowner and Written Authority Requirements

Produce a signed, current, unredacted landowner agreement showing: land boundary, conditions/hours, vehicle types, who maintains signage, and authority to enforce/litigate. A witness statement is insufficient. In the absence of such proof, Premier Park has no standing. Clause 14 requires operators to hold written authority defining site boundaries, tariffs, exemptions and proof of planning/advertising consents.

 

6. Clause 7 – Camera Images (ANPR) and Data Protection Compliance

Operators must evidence DPIA, privacy notices, lawful basis/necessity, accuracy and security of data, and appropriate retention. Clause 7 requires operators to maintain accurate, synchronised equipment and carry out manual quality-control checks to prevent ‘double-dip’ errors. None have been provided.
POPLA should not rely on unevidenced ANPR processing.

 

7. Failure to Prove Period of Parking & PDT/Tariff Logs

£2 was paid. The operator has not produced PDT logs or the tariff board showing what duration that purchased and the exact expiry.
Without this, the claim that “the whole period of parking was not paid for” is unproven. The burden is on the operator.

 

8. Planning & Advertising Consent – Strict Proof

If ANPR equipment and large signs lack planning/advertising consent where required, enforcement is unlawful. The operator is put to strict proof.

9. Consumer Fairness & Transparency – CRA 2015 / CPRs 2008

A £100 demand after a paid stay is disproportionate and not prominently disclosed. Clause 8.2.1 of the Single Code confirms a £100 maximum charge and minimum 40 % discount for early payment. Terms must be fair and transparent; important information cannot be hidden in small print.

 

10. ANPR Reliability – Industry Admissions

ANPR measures entry/exit only; errors (including “double dip”) are known. The Single Code (Clause 7.3) recognises that operators must ensure camera systems are maintained, accurate and synchronised; there is no evidence that Premier Park meets this obligation. Calibration and clock sync logs for the date are required but absent.

 

11. Conclusion

For the reasons above, the charge is unenforceable: Single Code Clause 5 ignored; signage non‑compliant; POFA defects bar keeper liability; no landowner authority;
no lawful ANPR evidence; and failure to prove any underpayment. I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Premier Park Ltd to cancel the PCN.

Car1980

I don't fancy your chances with a "prove it" approach. That's how county court operates.

At Popla you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. The assessor has "I am satisfied" copied and ready to paste multiple times with an appeal like that.

If there were signs they will have been audited and approved by the BPA, so it's extremely rare for a Popla assessor to go against their paymaster.

By all means continue if you want to get a stack of paperwork out of them, but personally I'd cut it right down to one appeal point. 

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 6, 8, 9 and 10 for starters.

mikechia

Hello – I appreciate the feedback! 

I have tried to rephrase the tone based on your suggestions and I have focused the appeal points. I kept some of the additional points that seem to add length and substance. 

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove 6, 8, 9 and 10 for starters.

I've removed these!

Should I change anything to ensure this is strong enough to win:

---

POPLA Appeal – Premier Park Ltd

Vehicle Registration: [REDACTED]

POPLA Verification Code: [REDACTED]

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 27/08/2025 acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the Operator – Premier Park Ltd. – was submitted and acknowledged on 24/09/2025 but subsequently rejected by email dated 18/10/2025.
I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1)    Grace Periods: Single Code v1.1 – Non-Compliance with Mandatory Consideration and Grace Periods

2)    There Are No Compliant Entrance Signs and the On-Site Signage Is Not Prominent, Clear or Legible from All Parking Spaces

3)    No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK Does Not Meet POFA 2012 Requirements

4)    No Evidence of Landowner Authority – Operator Is Put to Strict Proof of Full Compliance with Clause 14 of the Single Code

5)    Operator Has Failed to Produce Pay-and-Display Machine Records Proving the Alleged Unpaid Period of Parking

6)    The ANPR System Is Neither Reliable nor Accurate – Non-Compliance with Clause 7 (Camera Images)Signage and Visibility – Clause 3 & Annex A

1. Grace Periods: Single Code v1.1 – Non-Compliance with Mandatory Consideration and Grace Periods

Premier Park have failed to comply with Clause 5 and Annex B of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice v1.1 (Feb 2025), which require a consideration period of at least 5 minutes upon arrival and a grace period of at least 10 minutes after expiry of paid parking time. These two periods must both be applied, and no enforcement may occur within either.

The ANPR system recorded a total duration of 2 hours 34 minutes. The driver paid £2 for two hours of parking. The alleged “overstay” of approximately 34 minutes is entirely explained by normal activity at the start and end of the stay: parking, reading the terms, paying at the machine, and later remaining briefly in the vehicle before departure.

By failing to allow the mandatory consideration and grace periods, Premier Park have breached Clause 5 and Annex B of the Single Code. The alleged contravention is unproven and the charge must be cancelled.

 

2. There Are No Compliant Entrance Signs and the On-Site Signage Is Not Prominent, Clear or Legible from All Parking Spaces

Premier Park have failed to meet the signage standards required by Clause 3 and Annex A of the Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1 (Feb 2025). These clauses require:

·       An entrance sign clearly displaying “Private Land”;

·       The operator name and ATA logo;

·       Clear information about payment and terms; and

·       Visibility in darkness by lighting or retro-reflective material.

At the Royal Gatehouse car park, there is no prominent entrance sign visible to drivers on approach. The main sign is high-mounted, cluttered with dense text, and the £100 charge is buried in small print. It is not illuminated and is difficult to read near dusk. The signs fail to identify any marked bays or site boundaries, and a driver cannot easily determine where terms begin or end.

Therefore, no contract could have been formed because the terms were not properly brought to the driver’s attention, as required by Clause 3 and established consumer law.

Figure C1 – Royal Gatehouse signage (context). Elevated mounting; long viewing distance; dense small print; £100 charge not prominent; tiny text inconsistent with Beavis.

 

3. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK Does Not Meet POFA 2012 Requirements

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires that a Notice to Keeper must “specify the period of parking to which the notice relates.” Premier Park’s NtK merely lists the ANPR entry and exit timestamps, which are not evidence of parking.

ANPR cameras record only vehicle movement at the site boundary, not actual parking duration. Without a specific parking period, the NtK is non-compliant with POFA 2012 and keeper liability cannot apply.

Further, the NtK fails to state a single “amount of unpaid parking charge” as required under paragraph 9(2)(d), merely listing alternative discounted and full rates. The NtK is therefore defective and unenforceable against the keeper.

4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority – Operator Is Put to Strict Proof of Full Compliance with Clause 14 of the Single Code

Clause 14 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code v1.1 (Feb 2025) requires operators to hold written landowner authority that defines:

·       The exact boundaries of the land;

·       The hours and conditions of enforcement;

·       The tariffs and exemptions; and

·       Proof of planning and advertising consents for signage and equipment.

Premier Park have produced no evidence of such authority. Without a contemporaneous, unredacted contract granting enforcement rights, the operator has no legal standing to pursue parking charges. POPLA should therefore allow this appeal.

 

5. Operator Has Failed to Produce Pay-and-Display Machine Records Proving the Alleged Unpaid Period of Parking

Premier Park acknowledge that payment was made, yet have failed to produce machine logs showing what duration £2 purchased or when it expired.

The burden of proof lies with the operator. Without clear payment records or tariff details, it cannot be shown that any unpaid period occurred at all. POPLA cannot simply assume a breach on the basis of ANPR entry/exit times when the paid duration and tariff are unknown.

 

6. The ANPR System Is Neither Reliable nor Accurate – Non-Compliance with Clause 7 (Camera Images)

Clause 7 of the Single Code requires camera systems to be accurate, synchronised, regularly maintained, and subject to quality control checks. ANPR only records perimeter movements and does not identify actual parking activity.

Premier Park have provided no evidence of calibration, maintenance, or time-synchronisation logs for the cameras in operation on the date of the alleged event. In the absence of such evidence, the reliability of the timestamps—and thus the entire allegation—is called into question.

POPLA cannot reasonably rely on unverified data as proof of a contravention.

 

Conclusion

For all the reasons set out above, the charge is unenforceable. Premier Park Ltd have failed to comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice v1.1 (Feb 2025) and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The driver paid for two hours of parking, and the alleged overstay is fully accounted for by the mandatory consideration and grace periods. The signage is non-compliant, the NtK defective, and the evidence incomplete.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Premier Park Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

mikechia

Hello – would very much appreciate if anyone with experience could review my draft appeal, before I submit tomorrow?

Coupon-mad

Remove point 6.

mikechia

I have now received an email notification that says Premier Park have upload evidence. Should I provide any comments at this stage? Or just wait for the POPLA Assessment/Decision.

"Premier Park - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Premier Park - EW."

Coupon-mad

But this stage is covered in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

mikechia

Hi everyone,

I've now received the POPLA decision — it was unsuccessful. I've read the full Newbies thread to understand what happens after this stage. From what I gather, the next step is to simply ignore all debt collector letters and wait to see if Premier Park escalate to a Letter of Claim or court proceedings.

I just want to confirm: Are there any recent updates on the most effective approach if this does go to a County Court claim, given my case (ANPR overstay by ~34 minutes, paid for 1 hour, grace/consideration period argument)?

I've read the Newbies thread thoroughly, but would appreciate extra clarification on the current best practice at this post-POPLA stage and how Premier Park typically behave after a rejected appeal.

Thank you all for your time — really appreciate this forum's help! Just don't really want to lose in court…

(FYI, since my last message on this thread, the POPLA appeal was completed and marked 'not successful'. I didn't get an email notification about this, but eventually logged in to their portal to discover this, so I'm unsure of timeframes and what to expect next. It says their decision was on 21/01/2026. Below is the information they provided, if relevant to how I should proceed).

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They are the registered keeper and the operator has failed to comply with mandatory grace periods in accordance with the Single Code of Practice. • There are no compliant entrance signs, and they are not prominent, clear or legible. • There is no evidence of period parked. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. • No record of alleged unpaid parking period. • The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: • An image of a sign. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. I acknowledge the appellants grounds of appeal and evidence provided of a sign. The appellant has not confirmed who was driving the vehicle at the time and as such, I need to establish if the operator has complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in PoFA must be adhered to. I have reviewed the PCN and note that the breach occurred on 22nd August 2025, and the PCN was issued on 27th August 2025, well within the 14 days specified in PoFA. The Notice to Keeper goes on to state that if after 28 days the full amount has not been paid and they do not know the name and address of the driver, they have the right to purse the registered keeper. It also instructs the keeper to pass the notice to the driver. As such, I must conclude that the operator has complied with the requirements of PoFA and can transfer liability from the unknown driver to the appellant, the registered keeper. The appellant has raised several grounds which I shall try to respond to in order. They state the operator has not complied with the required grace and consideration periods, yet they openly admit the driver exceeded these. The parking operator is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) and must comply with the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code,) which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Clause 5.1 relates to consideration periods and states: Where a parking operator assumes a vehicle is parked based on time alone, they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out at Annex B. On a site such as this, the consideration period allowed is 5 minutes. Clause 5.2 relates to grace periods and states: A grace period as set out at Annex B to this Code must be allowed by the parking operator in addition to the parking period. A parking charge must not be issued during a Grace Period. On a site such as this, the grace period allowed is 10 minutes. As stated above, the operator has shown the driver remained on site for 1 hour 34 minutes but only paid for 1 hours parking. It’s clear from this that the appropriate grace and consideration periods were given and exceeded. The appellant has raised issues with the compliance of signage and as such, I have reviewed the evidence pack. I must make it clear that the operator does not need to comply with the Single Code in relation to signage until the end of 2026. As such, I shall refer to the old BPA Code of Practice. Section 19.2 of the Code relates to entrance signs and states: Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Section 19.3 relates to specific terms signs and states: Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. I have reviewed the parking operators evidence pack, and it has provided date stamped images of signs throughout the site and upon entry which make the terms clear, and motorists must pay to park. It’s entirely clear the driver was fully aware of this as they paid for 1 hours parking at 17:34, 8 minutes after entering. As stated above, the ANPR images show the driver remained on site for 1 hour 34 minutes, exceeding the paid time and applicable grace and consideration periods. I cannot conclude that the operator has failed to comply with the Code above regarding signage as again, it’s clear the driver saw the signs and paid, they just didn’t pay enough. The operator has provided a payment list to demonstrate the driver paid for 1 hours parking at 17:34, but exceeded the paid time by 34 minutes. POPLA must accept the evidence provided by the operator unless the contrary is proven, and the appellant has not provided any evidence to dispute the validity of the charge or the ANPR cameras. The operator only needs to demonstrate the time a motorist remained on site, not the time they remained in a parking bay. POPLA must assess the validity of the PCN against the terms and conditions. Clause 14.1 of the Code relates to relationship with landowner and states: Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s). The operator has confirmed that a contract is in place on site and provided a copy of the landowner agreement which covers the site in question, is dated and signed by both parties. Whilst the signatures are redacted, I find this more than adequate to demonstrate the operator has authority on site. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the driver broke them by failing to pay for their full stay. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.