POPLA appeal has been unsuccessful - Horizon Parking Ticket

AgnesNow

I cannot afford to pay this. what do I do....

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

R** A**

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • The road markings state “Iceland Customers Only” but this does not communicate that there is a maximum allowed stay time enforced by ANPR. • At the time they arrived, 19:46, they did not see any clear signage explaining the maximum stay time. • The British Parking Association (BPA) requires the signage to be clear, prominent and legible. In the evening and under low light, the signs are not clear. • The parking contract is not enforceable. The driver must be given fair opportunity to read, understand and accept the terms. • The PCN is excessive and not representative of any genuine loss to the parking operator. • They are a single parent of two and paying the PCN cause financial hardship for their family. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands their grounds of appeal in relation to: • There is no signage at the entrance to the site. • They state they entered during dusk and the signage must be clear during these times. • Drivers should not be expected to leave their vehicle and walk around looking for signs. • They entered at 19:46 and sunset was at 21:05. • They have further evidence or an annotated site map to provide. • They are willing to pay a reasonable amount. The appellant has provided the following evidence in support of their appeal: 1. A photo of the area dated October 2024. The above evidence will be considered in making my determination.

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 has explained that the road markings only advised that the site was for Iceland customers and made no reference to the maximum allowed stay time. They did not see any clear signage explaining the maximum stay time. And the appellant has referred to the BPA and the requirements of the signage to be clear, prominent and legible. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. The sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February 2024. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is clear sign at the entrance to the site that explains that terms and conditions apply and to se ethe signs within the site. I am satisfied that this is sets up the parking contract. Furthermore, section 19.3 of the BPA Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. In this case the parking operator’s evidence shows that there is a maximum allowed stay time of 45 minutes and that an £85 PCN would be issued for any contravention of the parking contract. It is the responsibility of the motorists to ensure they seek out and comply with the parking contract at all times. I acknowledge the appellant evidence of a Google Maps image of the site which is date stamped October 2024. As the latest images provided by the parking operator that show the signage is dated June 2025, I am satisfied that this shows a more up to date version of the signage and the site and that there is clear and complaint signage in the area. I also note that the appellant has referred to the signage not being visible in the dusk hours. They state they arrived at 19:46 and that sunset was at 21:05, 1 hour and 19 minutes later. I am satisfied that there would be sufficient daylight at the time that the signage would not need to be illuminated for a motorist to be able to read them. The British Parking Association (BPA) states that the “contract is offered by the signage and accepted when the motorist remains on site.” Whilst I completely understand the driver had no intention of failing to comply with terms and conditions, the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it, there is only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. On this occasion, as the appellant has remained here for 2 hours and 38 minutes meaning that the maximum allowed stay time of 45 minuets has been exceeded. As such, the appellant has parked in contravention of the parking contract and they have become liable for a PCN. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is excessive and does not reflect the loss to the landowner. The appeal reasons raised have led me to consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The appellant has also explained that they are a single parent of two and paying the PCN would have a significant impact on their family but they would be willing to pay a reasonable amount. Whilst I appreciate that the appellant’s circumstances and empathise with them, POPLA are unable to allow an appeal based on mitigating circumstances. The operator offers a discounted period for 14 days, allowing a motorist the option to pay or appeal. Once an appeal is received with POPLA the option to pay the reduced amount is no longer available. As such, once a refusal is issued, the higher amount must be paid within 28 days of the decision date. Furthermore, POPLA are not involved with the payment of PCNs and any further queries surrounding payment would need to be addressed directly with the operator. The appellant has also stated that they have additional evidence to provide. Any evidence the appellant wished to be considered must have been included along with their grounds of appeal as there is no opportunity o provide further evidence. As such, I cannot accept the appellant additional evidence at this stage. After considering the evidence from both parties, the appellant exceeded the maximum stay period 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.

ChirpyChicken

You dont pay simple as that 

AgnesNow

@ChirpyChickenwould they not try to take it to small claims court? 

Gr1pr

AgnesNow said:

@ChirpyChickenwould they not try to take it to small claims court? 

Who is "they "  ?

Name the private parking company involved,  plus location of the alleged breach of the parking contract 

Was it Excel Parking,  at an Iceland somewhere   ?  ( it's typically Excel Parking,  but they don't use the Popla appeal service   )

AgnesNow

Parking Charge Reference	***
Vehicle Registration Number	***
Breach of Terms and Conditions	Exceeded Maximum Stay Period ANPR
Date and Time of Breach	22nd July 202510:24 PM
Location Name	Iceland Luton Park Street
POPLA Code	3762395415
Date of this Correspondence	27th August 2025

this has been issued by Horizon Parking 

AgnesNow

@ChirpyChickenwould Ive poped more info

Gr1pr

So don't pay , ignore them 

But do complain about it to Iceland if you were a legitimate customer,  plan A in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

AgnesNow

Gr1pr I wasn't Iceland customer, I just thought it was ok to park there. 

Gr1pr

So now you know it's not, so comes with possible consequences 

Ignore them for now