Spring Parking - Reply to appeal contains incorrect parking details

SaeedB

The driver received a windscreen PCN for parking in a permit area, and as per the Newbies thread I waited 25 days and put the appeal in to Spring Parking via email. They did not allow the appeal and provided a POPLA number as requested. So now I am waiting for the NTK to turn up!

However within the email reply they have got the location completely wrong (I assumed they copied and pasted). Is there anything i can do about that and use it to my advantage?

Many thanks

James_Poisson

Well according to the joint COP the appeal rejection letter should state:

17.3. Internal Appeals and Independent Appeals

17.3.6. Location including outward postcode

So in essence they have failed to follow procedure required by the COP to correctly specify the the relevant land in the rejection letter, the COP requires this to match with that stated on the NTK:

17.2. Parking Charges

17.2.1. All parking charges which are issued including:

e) Location including outward postcode

As POPLA is all about the relevant contract, laws and procedures they have failed, though you should include other points applicable.

1505grandad

"…… I waited 25 days and put the appeal in to Spring Parking via email. "

Just checking - was that name a typo? - title states Smart parking.

James_Poisson

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81965098#Comment_81965098

Good point Smart are IPC Spring are BPA.

SaeedB

my apologies guy’s it’s Spring Parking. Now amended

SaeedB

Oooh… so that will be good when (and if) I receive the NTK as a point to make to POPLA.

Thank you very much.

SaeedB

Me again…!

Day 59 today and no NTK 😀

Reading the Newbie thread Post 3 as i type…

Anything else i need to add?

Thanks

SaeedB

Need some help please. I lost at POPLA!!

The NTK has an issue date of 14 May 2026 which is headed Reminder Notice
the ticket was placed on the car on 16 March 2026

Am I missing something??

How did they come to the the liability was transferred to the keeper?

they have also not addressed the fact about the wrong address on the email they sent me when I appealed to Spring

also keeps referring to the fact that appellant was parked etc. legtimately it wasn’t the keeper who was driving, it was the driver!

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 operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place in the car park, which detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs advise authorised vehicles only where a valid parking permit must be displayed at all times and that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a PCN being issued for £95.00. The operator has provided photographs to demonstrate that the vehicle was parked without a valid permit.

The appellant has raised that no notice to keeper was issued and therefore no liability has been established. The PCN was issued to the vehicle on the day and therefore considered issued to the driver, a reminder was then issued to the keeper per process and as is advised on the initial issued PCN.

The evidence provided by the operator clearly shows this was put on the vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the evidence,

I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met PoFA 2012 to transfer liability.

I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice.

The appellant has raised that no landowner authority has been provided. 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 has provided a copy of the contract with the landowner. In addition to this, the appellant has not provided any evidence to suggest that the operator does not have landowner authority, therefore there is nothing that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the operator’s contract with the landowner. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. I am satisfied the operator has the appropriate authority on this site.

The appellant has raised that the signage is inadequate and has provided photographs and google maps images to demonstrate this. Section 3.1.3. of the Code states that signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach, use a sentence-case font size appropriate for the location of the sign so as to be clearly readable by a driver, having regard to the likely position of the driver in relation to the sign, use colours such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible. The signage provided by the operator, clearly shows the terms of the contract. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the contract and parking. By parking at the site, the appellant became subject to the terms of the contract, which apply to all motorists that enter the site. The images provided by the appellant do clearly show the signage at the site. Having reviewed the signage at the site, I am satisfied that it meets the Code and that it makes clear the terms of the contract.

The appellant raises that there is no evidence of the alleged contravention. The photographs provided by the operator clearly show the vehicle being parked with out a parking permit.

Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any statement or evidence to suggest that they hold a valid permit, therefore I am satisfied that a breach occurred and the appellant is aware that they were not able to comply with the terms, or evidence forgetting to show a parking permit.

The appellant has raised that the operator has failed to give a grace period. Section 5.1 of the Code states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. A consideration period refers to the time before a motorist chooses to park and utilise the car park. The appellant chose to remain in the car park without a parking permit, and as such a I am satisfied a breach occurred. Section 5.2 of the Code requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free period of parking. A grace period refers to time given to those who exit a site after a compliant parking session. As the vehicle remained without a permit, I am satisfied that a breach occurred.

POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the charge in accordance with the conditions of the contract. The terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, as no valid permit was displayed. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

Gr1pr

You will have to edit the above wall of text into suitable paragraphs before anyone can read it properly

SaeedB

initial ticket and subsequent NTK

Le_Kirk

You should know from reading the NEWBIE sticky that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist. Next you might receive a letter of/before claim and then a N1SDT claim form. Advice for those eventualities also in the NEWBIE sticky.