Total Parking Solutions PCN Appeal Rejected at Popla. Confused about NTK

Coupon-mad

FollyT said:

5. POPLA APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL, 08.12.2025

POPLA assessment and decision
08/12/2025
Verication Code
8412665011

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Lyndsey Howgate

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to being parked in a hatched
area.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has provided a detailed account surrounding the parking event in question. For the purpose of my report, I have summarised the grounds raised into the points below:

 •The appellant advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver.

•The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served.

•The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver.

•The appellant advises no evidence of
landowner authority.

•The appellant advises the signs were not prominent, clear or legible.

The appellant has provided: •A copy of their grounds of appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the 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 registered keeper of the vehicle has raised the appeal; I will be referring to them as the appellant throughout my report.

The parking operator has provided a copy of the car park site map indicating where signage is located within the car park and time dated photographs of the signage within the car park which advises no parking on yellow lines, white lines, hatched lines or approaches to to crossing/junction access, pay on exit, tariffs available, payment methods available and failure to comply will result in a £70 PCN being issued. The parking operator has also supplied images obtained from the parking attendant showing the vehicle parked within a hatched area.

The appellant advises they are appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle and not the driver. The appellant advises a compliant notice to keeper was not served. The appellant advises the parking operator has not shown the individual who it is pursuing was the driver. The government created the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to allow a parking operator to hold the keeper of a vehicle liable for a PCN if it does not know who the driver is. It also gives the keeper of a vehicle the chance to name the driver if they do not want to be held liable for the PCN. A keeper of a vehicle is a person who is registered with the DVLA as owning the vehicle. I note in this instance, the PCN was affixed to the vehicle on the day it was issued. The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being obtained from the DVLA confirming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satisfied that the PCN was affixed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle.

The appellant advises no evidence of landowner authority. On many car parks, a parking operator acts on behalf of a landowner. I have reviewed a copy of a witness statement dated 11 March 2016, which confirms that the parking operator does have authority to manage the car park, which would include collecting payment for any breaches of terms and conditions of use of the private land. The appellant had not provided any evidence to suggest that the parking operator does not have the landowner’s authority to manage the land and therefore I must be satisfied that the parking operator does have the authority to issue PCN’s to motorist who breach any terms and conditions of use of private land/car park.

The appellant advises the signs were
not prominent, clear or legible. Due to the appellants grounds of appeal, I have reviewed this sectors
Code of Practice which was 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. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of The Code
states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.3 of The Code contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs
must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to 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 conspicuous and legible. I have reviewed the car park site map indicating where signage is located and photographs of signage within the area provided by the parking operator and I am satisfied that there is ample, clear signage throughout to advise all motorist of the terms and conditions of use of the private land. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, due to being parked in a hatched area, I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't go wrong. The Assessor did!

"The parking operator advises that the appellant made contact prior to details being
obtained from the DVLA conrming that they were the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am satised that the PCN was axed to the vehicle and as no driver details were supplied, the parking operator has acted in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 2012 regarding requesting payment of the PCN from the keeper of the vehicle."

Email a complaint to POPLA stating that this new Assessor needs retraining because, for keeper liability to apply, there has to be:

- data obtained from the DVLA and not from any other source

- a compliant NTK had to follow a windscreen PCN REGARDLESS of an appeal in between. They have clearly not complied with para 8 of Schedule 4 and the Assessor failed to even look at whether a NTK was served by post.

FollyT said:

This is to update anyone interested. I have now received an e-mail from Popla, upholding my complaint. In brief, it states that while the decision of the assessor cannot be overturned because it did not involve a procedural error, the decision itself was disappointing in that it failed to address the fact that a Notice to Keeper was never issued. The assessor in question is to be informed. Fingers crossed that some good will come of this in terms of future decisions.

POPLA is awful. It's not difficult to properly train assessors in the one law they rely on, which dates back to 2012!

And TPS has misled POPLA by pretending that the keeper can be pursued. They are a long-standing BPA member; they know full well that you can't, not without any NTK being served.

Ignore the £170 threatogram chain.

Come back if they try a small claim.

FollyT

Thank you for the advice. I'll continue to follow it.