Snowhill retail park- 1 minute wait outside proper bay

justobserving88

As expected, appeal was rejected. I've been slow in addressing things but today is 28 days so I have to do POPLA appeal today. I will post their NTK and rejection letters then my initial draft of POPLA appeal, if anyone has any feedback it would be much appreciated.

"I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal this parking charge. I am not obliged to identify the driver and decline to do so.

I submit that I am not liable for this charge on the following grounds:

1. No evidence of a parking event

The operator has failed to demonstrate that the vehicle was “parked” at all.

The total recorded duration is 1 minute and 5 seconds. This is wholly insufficient to constitute parking. It is entirely consistent with a vehicle briefly entering, assessing the site, and exiting, or engaging in a non-parking activity such as passenger set down.

The operator provides no evidence of:

• the vehicle being stationary for any meaningful period
• the driver leaving the vehicle
• any period of actual parking

A mere presence on site for 65 seconds does not meet any reasonable definition of parking.

POPLA has previously recognised that brief stopping or circulation is not parking, and the operator is put to strict proof that a parking event occurred.

2. Mandatory consideration period not observed

The BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow a consideration period for drivers to:

• enter the site
• read signage
• decide whether to stay or leave

A duration of 65 seconds falls entirely within this mandatory period.

No reasonable driver could be expected to:

• locate signage
• read and understand terms
• decide whether to accept them

within such a short timeframe.

Therefore, no contract could have been formed, and no breach can arise.

3. Inadequate evidence of the alleged breach

The operator alleges the vehicle was “parked in a roadway” but has provided no substantive evidence to support this claim.

They have failed to provide:

• clear photographic evidence of the vehicle parked in contravention
• evidence of duration of any alleged parking
• evidence that the alleged roadway restriction was clearly defined and communicated

A bare assertion is not sufficient. POPLA requires strict proof.

4. Inadequate signage

The operator has provided no site-specific evidence that signage:

• was prominent and visible upon entry
• clearly stated the alleged restriction (“no parking on roadway”)
• clearly displayed the £100 charge

Generic statements about compliance with the BPA Code are insufficient.

The operator is put to strict proof by way of:

• dated photographs of all signage
• a site map showing locations
• evidence of visibility from a driver’s perspective

5. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator has not demonstrated that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this location.

The operator is put to strict proof of:

• a contemporaneous, unredacted contract
• showing authority to issue charges and pursue them to POPLA

A mere witness statement or generic contract will not suffice.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to demonstrate:

• that a parking event occurred
• that a contract was formed
• that any breach took place

Given the extremely short duration of 65 seconds, this charge is wholly unsupported and must be cancelled."

Coupon-mad

I'm going out but POPLA Codes last till day 33. Honestly. Please don't look at the rejection letter or POPLA's website.

Day 33 is your deadline.

justobserving88

Thank you, I will have time to improve it then.

PHOTO-2026-04-07-12-02-02.jpg

PHOTO-2026-04-07-12-02-42.jpg

PHOTO-2026-04-07-12-03-03.jpg

PHOTO-2026-04-07-12-03-07.jpg

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81892730#Comment_81892730

I do not believe that Vickers Carnley do not know who the car park manager is - they're a managing agent, is this standard practice to not know who manages parts of the land/site that you are managing??!!

justobserving88

They said they do not own the site and wouldn't know who to put me in touch with. I followed up asking if they had any direction they could point me in and they just maintained that they did not know. They could well be lying but who knows.

I also asked a few businesses on the site and they only knew about the parking company.

justobserving88

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I appeal this parking charge in full. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. No assumptions can be drawn from this. I submit that I am not liable for this charge on the following grounds:

1. No parking event occurred — passenger set down is exempt activity
   The recorded duration of stay is 1 minute and 5 seconds. This does not constitute parking. The MHCLG Statutory Code of Practice (which represents the Government’s position on what private parking operators should be held to) explicitly states that a “period of parking” does not include passenger pick up or set down, which is exempt activity. The vehicle was briefly stationary for approximately 65 seconds while a passenger alighted. This is precisely the type of activity the Code exempts from enforcement. The operator has provided no evidence that the driver left the vehicle, that the vehicle was stationary for any meaningful period beyond the exempt activity, or that any act of parking, as distinct from a brief stop, occurred. A bare assertion that the vehicle was “parked in a roadway” is wholly insufficient. The operator is put to strict proof that a parking event, as opposed to an exempt set down, took place.
2. Mandatory consideration period not observed
   Even if POPLA were to find that a parking event occurred (which is denied), the duration of 65 seconds falls entirely within the mandatory consideration period required by the BPA Code of Practice. The Code requires operators to allow motorists sufficient time upon entering a site to locate signage, read and understand the terms, and decide whether to accept them or leave. No reasonable driver could be expected to do any of these things within 65 seconds. No contract could therefore have been formed, and no breach can arise. The charge must be cancelled on this ground alone.
3. Inadequate evidence of the alleged breach
   The operator alleges the vehicle was “parked in a roadway” but has produced no substantive evidence to support this. They have failed to provide clear photographic or video evidence demonstrating the vehicle was parked in contravention as opposed to briefly stationary, evidence precisely defining the “roadway” restriction and its boundaries, or evidence that any such restriction was clearly communicated to drivers. A bare assertion does not meet the standard of proof required.
4. Inadequate signage
   The operator has not demonstrated that signage at this location was compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. Specifically, they have not provided dated photographs of all signage at the location, a site map showing the position of all signs relative to the alleged contravention, or evidence of the visibility of signs from a driver’s perspective upon entry. Without this evidence, it cannot be established that any contractual terms were clearly communicated to drivers, and no contract can have been formed.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
   The operator has not demonstrated that it has authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this location. The operator is put to strict proof of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract with the landowner confirming express authority to issue charges and pursue appeals to POPLA. A generic or redacted document will not suffice.
   Conclusion
   The operator has failed to demonstrate that a parking event occurred, that a contract was formed, or that any breach took place. The vehicle was present for 65 seconds in the course of an exempt passenger set down activity. This charge is wholly without merit and I respectfully request that POPLA uphold this appeal and cancel the charge in full.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953297#Comment_81953297

It will be revealed when you get the landowner authority in the POPLA evidence.

We bet it's the property agents who fobbed you off. The POPLA appeal is worth doing for that alone, whether it wins or not! You won't be paying.

justobserving88

Do you think it’s worth getting into mitigating factors and identifying the driver etc or just stick to what I’ve said?

Coupon-mad

Mitigating factors - no.

Identifying the driver - no.

But you could maybe copy the style of this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953749#Comment_81953749

MothballsWallet

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81953297#Comment_81953297

In my opinion, they are not being transparent with you.