POPLA Appeal Stage - NTK Validity

James_Poisson

The following assumption for me shows either the bias or ineptitude of POPLA who are supposed to only consider evidence and facts, not make it up as they go along:

"it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage stating the £100 PCN amount if they did not agree with the parking charge amount. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission stating the incorrect terms and conditions so I am satisfied that the charge is correct."

They never give any leeway like that to appellants, usually sating something like "I can only consider the evidence before me", this assessor needs a severe talking to. But POPLA will just bleat on about it being a one stage appeal it's wrong but it stands!

On the issue of the signage how can this PPC be compliant with the BPA audit system that claims they are audited every year and their signage has been passed (they all like to state that in their evidence submissions).

From this example it is quite clear they are flouting the rules set by their ATA by allowing the landowner to put up (or not) any old signage they want which obviously is not audited, we all know that the BPA only look at office masters not on site reality.

An unregulated industry with a unregulated biased appeals system(s) that basically carries on regardless!

SwankyKumquat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81908514#Comment_81908514

Submitted formal complaint by email - focussed specifically on the failure to consider para 14 or Annex G, and the assessor's choice to make a hypothetical assessment of landowner intention in blatant disregard to these requirements. What kind of response from POPLA could I anticipate from this complaint?

Coupon-mad

The decision will not be changed but if the complaints reviewer agrees with you, then you can use that later, as court evidence.

SwankyKumquat

This just in (the response speaks for itself, highlights for your entertainment in bold):

Thank you for your email received 4 March 2026, outlining the reason(s) why you are unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.

It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal service, and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree with our decision. My role is not to determine if the decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has failed to follow the correct process and identify whether a procedural error has occurred.

The crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal.

You state the landowner document provided by NSGL details a figure of £80.00 rather than the £100.00 charge you received and the enforcement method is different than the basis you received the parking charge notice.

You explain the operator must comply with the requirements of the code of practice regarding landowner authority.

You state the assessor has chosen to undertake a hypothetical analysis of landowner authority and reached a fundamental conclusion the landowner and operator must have agreed a contract which disregards the need for documentation in line with Annex G of the code of practice.

You advise the assessor considered your comments pointing out the discrepancy as a new ground of appeal and they were unable to consider this at the comments stage.

POPLA is an evidence-based service, and we can only base our decisions on the evidence presented at the time of the appeal. We accept evidence from either party in good faith unless the opposite if proven.

The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing evidence that supports its version of events, the burden of proof then passes to the appellant.

It should be noted that an operator is not required to provide a copy of the contract it holds with the landowner as this may contain commercially sensitive information.

While I acknowledge your comments regarding the landowner contract, when considering an appeal, a POPLA assessor will review the evidence provided by both parties to determine if the parking charge notice has been issued correctly.

The landowner agreement was signed in 2012, and it is a rolling contract. The operator has signage erected on site and Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras installed, which it would not be able to do if it did not have authority from the landowner. Therefore, as you did not provide any evidence to show otherwise, the assessor was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the operator has the relevant authority from the landowner to enforce parking in this site.

While it is not in dispute the landowner agreement states the charge amount is £80 and the site is managed by patrols, the terms have changed since the contract was originally agreed.

Regardless of this, it is clearly stated on the signage on this site the car park is camera controlled and the parking charge notice is £100 therefore, this is not sufficient to invalidate the parking charge notice.

My role is not to determine if the decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has failed to follow the correct process and identify whether a procedural error has occurred. In this instance, while I fully accept that the assessor is wrong to state that you raised new grounds of appeal at the comments stage, on reviewing the case, I am satisfied that all of your grounds of appeal were considered during the assessment.

I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case but not responded to. 

Yours sincerely,

Dr JokeyMcJokeface

Senior Shyster at POPLA

Coupon-mad

POPLA = complete joke.

So there's no point having Appendix G and the Code clauses about the purpose of proving landowner authority then, if POPLA can ignore that and say "it must have changed since 2012" and not require the operator to comply with Appendix G!

The PCN sum could be £90 (any sum, who knows?) and the updated landowner rules here could be "no yellow cars on a Tuesday" but POPLA reckon they can just fall back on "the signs must be right or somebody would have removed them".

What's the point of ANY rules about landowner authority then?!

SwankyKumquat

Very kind of the complaints reviewer to double down on this absurd line of reasoning from POPLA for me: provides a nice summary for use at possible future LBC/Court stage.