Yet another scumbag parking eye letter - Fox House, Derby - POPLA Stage

usernamenotfound

Wow. 8 weeks down the line and they refused my appeal. This is incredibly stressful. what now?

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameMichael PirksAssessor summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) due to gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal in detail: • They are the registered keeper of the vehicle. • They say that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the PCN fee itself, as per the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA). • The parking operator has no proprietary interest in the land and there is no evidence of a contract authorising the parking operator to manage the land, as per section 14.1 of the BPA code of practice. In their comments to the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant has expanded their grounds of appeal in further detail, including that only five signs on the car park walls are insufficient, the images are dated from March 2025, and no signs are sufficiently displayed within the newly developed area. The appellant also comments that the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and the contract does not indicate an expiry date. The appellant has provided the following evidence to support their appeal: • Photographs from the site showing the lack of prominent signage, dated from 10 November 2025. • A word document explaining their grounds of appeal in further detail.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

I note the appellant has stated in their appeal that the parking operator has not complied with the requirements of PoFA when it comes to establishing liability, as the driver has not been identified. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper if the driver or hirer is not identified. In this case, it is unclear who the driver of the vehicle is and therefore, I must consider the requirements of PoFA, as the parking operator issued the PCN to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Parking operators must follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver within a 28-day period. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and as the registered keeper did not provide the driver’s details as part of the original appeal, the parking operator has successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. As such, I will be considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN as the registered keeper. The parking operator has provided photographs of the signs, stating that the site is for permit holders, where motorists must obtain a permit from contacting the details stated, and failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. To summarise, the appellant has raised they are the registered keeper of the vehicle, and the signage is prominent or clearly legible, and that there is no evidence of landowner authority. As mentioned in their above comments, the appellant has expanded on these grounds, including that only five signs on the car park walls are insufficient, the images are dated from March 2025, and no signs are sufficiently displayed within the newly developed area. The appellant also comments that the landowner contract is heavily redacted, and the contract does not indicate an expiry date. Having considered the terms of the site, a permit was required to cover the motorists’ parking time on the site. The parking operator has provided a vehicle registration data log showing that no permit was registered against the motorists’ vehicle registration and therefore, the PCN has been issued. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. This Code came into effect on 1st October 2024 and replaces the previous code of practice. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers can read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be clear and easy to understand. In its evidence, the parking operator has provided photographs of the onsite signs, stating the full terms and conditions and the PCN fee is prominently displayed on the signs. The site map shows me that multiple signs are displayed across the site, including a sign at the entry point to the car park, which is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles, and the size of the writing is clear so that the terms can be read. I have considered the appellant’s images and whilst I note these images are taken from November 2025 and January 2026 respectively, and that no signs are displayed, these images are only taken from specific points of the car park and do not represent the car park as a whole. In contrast, the parking operator’s images, date stamped from November 2024 and March 2025, are taken from prominent parts of the site in question and the site map shows how many signs are displayed throughout the car park. I acknowledge the appellant states the charge is not prominently displayed, which has 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 Whilst I note the appellant does not believe the PCN fee is prominently displayed as per the requirements of PoFA, I am satisfied from the images of the signage attached that the charge is appropriately prominent and would have been brought to the driver’s attention. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage is conspicuous and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the site. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the operator within its evidence pack has advised that they have authority to act on behalf of the landowner. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria POPLA requires. POPLA must also consider the fact that there is equipment, signage and on occasion personnel on site to manage the function of enforcement and this cannot happen without the landowner’s authority. If the parking operator were not allowed to issue charges on site, the landowner would not permit the parking operator to keep its signage on site. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator do not own the land in question, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operators’ contract with the landowner. Whilst I note that certain parts of the contract are redacted, I am satisfied that a valid contract is in place in accordance with Section 14 of the Code and the parking operator has sufficient authority to issue charges. I have also considered the appellant's document and whilst I appreciate the detail included, this information does not invalidate the issue of the PCN. Ultimately, as the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the parking operator has issued the PCN correctly, and the appeal is refused.

ChirpyChicken

just wait for the court claim, this was to be expected

usernamenotfound

Never gotten this far before, I'll try not to panic and look at the template defence suggestion:

(Or perhaps I'm jumping the gun?)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/039-template-039-defence-suggestion-nb-ultimately-your-choice-of-defence-wording-is-your-own

Any other advice would be appreciated

Gr1pr

As Mentioned above, court is where this outstanding pcn invoice case will be resolved , so ignore the powerless debt collectors letters stage, only deal with the LBC stage and possible subsequent court claim stage

Coupon mad predicted a loss 5 months ago

But we predict that you won't win at POPLA v ParkingEye...

Don't bother. Just complain to the retailer or landowner/agent

Other advice is as follows

The interim time from now to then should be spent preparing, researching etc

Dont look for a non existent solution, there isn't one, you should believe our advice and prepare

usernamenotfound

Thanks @Gr1pr

I've already started reading the Template defence suggestion post and am jumping between that and the NEWBIES post. There's definitely a lot to take in so I'll go through it carefully and make sure I don't miss anything.

Any queries I have, I'll be sure to come back here and post.

usernamenotfound

I have a quick query on this section from Coupon-mad:

"If you get a LBCCC direct from ParkingEye (not from DCBLegal on their behalf) email PEye's litigation team with facts / receipts / blue badge / proof of patronage, to try to resolve the dispute:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk

Treat the ParkingEye email as your 'last gasp' chance to appeal. Alternatively, they should accept you naming the driver & postal address ... and should reissue the PCN and start again with the driver being allowed to appeal."

What does it mean to "accept you naming the driver & postal address and should reissue the PCN and start again with the driver being allowed to appeal."?

Does this mean I should try this and take another shot at appealing or am I misunderstanding the context here?

Gr1pr

The Context is where the keeper and driver are 2 separate people, meaning where the keeper was not the driver

It does not apply where the parking company know who was driving, or where you cannot name yourself as the driver because you are both keeper and driver

Regardless, you seem to believe that you might be successful with more appeals, but their decision wont change, appeals are routinely rejected, its an unregulated industry where no profits are made by appeals being accepted, no money in it ! Popla was the last chance for the appeal stage for this, especially if you were the driver

Litigation becomes the point where a resolution happens , so with Parking Eye its either themselves that issue the legal proceedings, or they employ a lawyer fim like DCB LEGAL instead ( PE tend to cherry pick the easy cases. )

If you were not the driver, then you can name the driver at any point up until a claim form is issued, which was one option on the back of your NTK PCN letter

usernamenotfound

I also did a quick search online and discovered that POPLA is funded by BPA, but outright deny this has any influence on their decision making.

When did POPLA turn from a serviceable tool for motorists into this farce?

I speak from experience of using them (once or twice, I cannot remember,) many years prior with successful appeals, and it was reasonable to deal with back then.

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81944772#Comment_81944772

POPLA has always been funded by the BPA. Its first operating period was under the auspices of the London Councils, where legally trained assessors were employed, and much fairer decisions were reached. However, this arrangement became too expensive for the BPA, coinciding with London Councils wanting out.

After an interim period with a temporary provider (Wright Hassall solicitors - jokingly referred to as WHOPLA), the next iteration was the Ombudsman Service (current provider) which saw a move away from legally trained assessors, with a ragbag assembly of former call centre staff, nail technicians, adult fiction writers and other wholly untrained recruits learning the ropes. Very often their decisions lay open their lack of legal knowledge and training. As a result, decisions have gradually shifted more towards the operator than the motorist.

It is what it is for now, but The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 requires the appointment of a single independent appeals service. We await the appointment, hoping that neither POPLA nor the IPC’s IAS has any future involvement. But given the length of delay in rolling out the CoP (Autumn 2026 being the latest deadline), a new appeals service could yet be some years away. Let’s see!

We see us regulars having the guarantee of a job here on MSE for many years to come (but I do wish they’d give us a pay rise! 😄)

Gr1pr

We probably thought that proper regulation would arrive 5 or 6 years ago, but are still waiting ( the deep said that it would all be over by Xmas, but he never mentioned the year. )

Popla started when POFA2012 was implemented, in 2012, when there was only one trade body, the BPA

Some of the regulars here started a lifetime ago