2 operators on 1 car park

kryten3000

I found this on Google Street View - there is no entrance sign on the Subway side as of September 2025, only the Euro Car Parks one on the right.

PufferJAcket

Hi all,

So I appealed to POPLA and total car parks have responded with the below and have attached their evidence below. They have attached the plans for what part of the car park they manage and mentioned they are delineated bays for subway, so I'm automatically meant to know about the plans? What further comments can I make and what's the likelihood of winning this appeal?

The Appellant’s vehicle, with registration —, was parked in Subway 45123 car park in Aldridge. There are numerous Warning signs in and around the car park which clearly explain “SUBWAY CUSTOMER PARKING ONLY - MAXIMUM STAY 30 MINS whilst using the restaurant”. We have attached under Section B a copy of the signs which are displayed in and around the car park, and photos showing the signs in situ; together with a Plan under Section F of where these signs are located. As we do not own the car park, we are also attaching a redacted copy (for confidentiality reasons) of the agreement we have with the landlord, where it clearly says that we are authorised to issue and pursue unpaid Parking Charges (Section G, pages 37 to 40).

On March 3rd, the appellants vehicle was observed by the car park attendant from 13:09:17 to 13:51:28. The attendant observed that the vehicle remained beyond the 30 minute maximum stay limit, so the vehicle was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions, and the attendant issued a Parking Charge.

On his appeal to us Pufferjacket confirmed that he was the driver and explained that the car park is operated by us and Euro Car Parks, and that he registered his vehicle inside the Crown Inn Pub. On the answer to his appeal we explained that the signage throughout the site outlines that parking is for Subway Customers only for a maximum of 30 minutes, and that it was his responsibility to make himself aware of the displayed terms and conditions and to ensure that he parked in adherence to them. As he overstayed the 30 minute maximum stay limit for Subway Customers, and he was not a Subway Customer, we had no other option than to decline his appeal.

On his appeal to POPLA the appellant has stated:

“I believe this is an unfair parking charge as they have based this charge on me knowing there are 2 operators on the pub car park and me knowing which operator manages which spaces.” – as you can see in Section G, pages 41 to 42, Euro Car Parks have their own entry sign, so that is the point which the demise which they manage begins. There are no Euro Car Parks sign in the area which he parked, and given that the Subway store is before the Euro Car Parks signage, we do not understand why the appellant believed that he could park in the Subway spaces for visiting the pub nearby, nor why he believed that spaces belonging to the pub were not even nearby to the pub.

“As I wasn't aware of this and only seen the signage for euro car parks, the charge from total car parks is therefore unfair,” – he only saw the signage for Euro Car Parks as he went into the pub, he did not look for any signs in our site. If he was visiting the Pub, we don’t understand why he didn’t just park outside their building.

“As I was visiting a friend for lunch at the crown pub and this is the parking sign I seen, I adhered to their terms by authorising my parking using their console inside the pub” – He did not adhere to the terms displayed for parking in our site, as he was not a Subway Customer, and he overstayed the maximum stay limit of 30 minutes.

“In the rejected appeal letter I received, they state that I registered my car with the company who manage the other part of the car park and they state the signs are clear at subways entrance. As I wasn't a customer of subway, nor are the bays marked by the individual parking operator, I'm under the impression the car park is managed solely by euro car parks” – the bays are marked, and he was parked well before the area which the Euro Car Parks entry sign covers. If they did manage the entire site, the entrance sign would have been closer to his vehicle, at the beginning of where the Private Land begins.

“I was visiting a friend at the crown pub for lunch. The car park in question is for the Crown pub which also has a subway on the same site. Upon entering the car park, there is a large euro car parks sign by the wall and a large euro car parks sign on the wall of the pub. This large sign on the post is the first sign you see upon entry & exiting my car. Upon receiving the parking fine, they have included photos of the signs for 4 subway which aren't visible in comparison to the euro car parks sign therefor I couldn't agree to the terms laid out by total car parks as I didn't see these due to not being a subway customer, which is where these signs are located. The car park is also not sign posted to which operator manages which spaces so I parked on the left side as there are no signs to suggest I cant park there nor any delineation to show subways spaces. I approved my parking via the euro car parks tablet in the pub as I agreed to their terms due to seeing their sign upon entry.” – Subway and The Crown Inn do not share the same demise, hence why he incurred a Parking Charge for overstaying the maximum stay limit. The spaces are delineated by way of the Euro Car Parks entry sign being placed at the beginning of the pubs demise of their site, which we have shown on Section G, pages 41 to 42.

Also to add, from the picture above, the entrance on the high street is a one way and you enter from the right which is where the euro car parks sign is situated being the first sign you see on entry

kryten3000

They will say anything to help prevent the PCN from being cancelled. Fortunately POPLA is not binding on the motorist, so you don't have to pay if the appeal is rejected.

Coupon-mad

Just do some concise bullet point comments to the Assessor, reiterating that:

• there is just one entrance sign (Euro Car Parks, not this operator) and
• the car park is neither 'physical barrier separated' nor is it delineated with a prominent message (e.g. the words SUBWAY ONLY on the tarmac would assist with clarity) and
• nor are bays coloured differently on that side; in fact they haven't marked out any bays or a supposed Subway area (what is the area? The sign doesn't say) and
• TCP even admit to being in breach of the BPA Code (which currently still applies to signage this year, I think) because their image of a sign in this evidence pack states "No BPA (entrance) sign as entrance is shared with the Crown Inn spaces"!
• They admit it's a shared entrance, yet only Euro have an entrance sign up. They can't both be right! If Euro complied on their 'side', what's TCP's excuse?
• Sharing an entrance is not an exemption in the BPA Code from putting up an entrance sign on 'their side'. Their aerial view shows it's not small; not a mere shop forecourt for a handful of cars. So TCP are in clear breach of the Code and this led to the confusion.