Saba Parking Charge Notice: Appealed

soulfella

Here’s the POPLA decision and rationale.

DecisionUnsuccessfulAssessor NameHuda JamaAssessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to failing to obtain a valid ticket or cashless parking session.

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 states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not contain the information required by paragraph 9(2)(b) and paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4. • The appellant states that, as the Notice does not comply with Schedule 4, the keeper cannot be held liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The appellant believes the appeal should be allowed. All of the above has been considered in making my determination. 

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 operator has also provided photographic evidence of the signage at the site. The signage advises motorists that Pay on Arrival or Permit Holders Only and that Payment must be made by 04:00am upon arrival to the car park. The signage further advises that unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles may be issued with a Parking Charge of up to £100. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) evidence showing that the vehicle entered the site on 31 March 2026 at 06:42:17 and exited at 16:17:56. The operator states that the Parking Charge Notice was issued due to failing to obtain a valid ticket or cashless parking session. The operator has provided payment audit records for the site and states that there was no payment recorded for the vehicle on 31 March 2026. The records provided do not show a payment associated with the appellant's vehicle registration for the date of the parking event. The appellant states that the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. They further state that the Notice to Keeper does not contain the information required by paragraphs 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e) and therefore keeper liability cannot be established. I acknowledge the appellant's comments. However, having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I find that it complies with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper advises that the driver is required to pay the Parking Charge in full, invites the keeper to provide the name and current address of the driver if they were not the driver at the time of the parking event, and warns that the operator may recover the unpaid charge from the keeper if the driver's details are not provided. The operator's evidence confirms that the parking event occurred on 31 March 2026 and that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 08 April 2026. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper was issued within the relevant period prescribed by Schedule 4. I note that the appellant has not identified the driver of the vehicle. As I am satisfied that the operator has complied with the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the operator is able to transfer liability for the Parking Charge to the registered keeper.# 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, as no valid payment was made. I conclude that the operator has issued the parking charge correctly, and the appeal is refused.

yarpsnehpets

Huda Jama deliberately misrepresents the requirements of POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e) in order to make the NtK compliant.

The notice clearly does not specify "that the parking charges have not been paid in full" - the second requirement of 9(2)(b) - Huda Jama quotes the first requirement of 9(2)(b) but deliberately skips over the second requirement.

The notice clearly does not state "that the creditor does not know the name and address for service for the driver" - 9(2)(e).

The notice clearly does not 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - 9(2)(e)(i).

More unbelievable work from a badly trained POPLA Assessor.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82148535#Comment_82148535

Awful decision by a new Assessor. Never heard of her!

Ignore it. Sit tight. Ignore the laughable ZZPS letters that follow.

But please post it in POPLA Decisions saying which PPC it is about and adding a link to this thread.