POPLA appeal rejected - Hilton hotel T2 - Euro Car Parks

jalakmody · 27 August at 10:59AM

I would appreciate advice on two Euro Car Parks PCNs issued at a hotel drop-off/short-stay area at Heathrow Terminal 2.

Sequence of events:

Two separate PCNs were issued by Euro Car Parks for the same vehicle at the same Heathrow hotel drop-off/short-stay location.
The allegation in both cases was “parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction”.
Both events were very short. One was approximately 2 minutes and the other was approximately 3 minutes, based on ANPR entry and exit times.
I appealed to Euro Car Parks as the registered keeper only. I did not identify the driver and made no admission as to who was driving.
My main appeal points were:
- Heathrow airport land is not “relevant land” under POFA Schedule 4 because it is subject to airport byelaws/statutory control.
- Therefore keeper liability should not apply.
- ANPR only shows entry and exit, not an actual period of parking.
- The short time on site was a consideration period to read signs, decide whether to stay/pay, and leave.
- No parking event or contract acceptance was proven.
Euro Car Parks rejected the appeals and provided POPLA codes.
I appealed to POPLA on the same basis. Euro Car Parks then submitted an evidence pack.
In the evidence pack, Euro Car Parks stated that I had confirmed I was the driver. This was incorrect, because their own copy of my original appeal clearly showed that I appealed as registered keeper and expressly said I made no admission as to the driver’s identity.
Euro Car Parks also relied on ANPR images, payment audit data, signage photographs, and a heavily redacted landowner agreement.
I commented on the POPLA evidence, pointing out:

ECP’s false statement about me confirming I was the driver.
The site being within the Heathrow Airport environment.
The issue of airport byelaws/statutory control and “not relevant land”.
ANPR showing only presence on site, not parking.
The short duration being a consideration period.
The signage photos not proving that the driver could read and accept the terms within such a short time.
The landowner agreement being heavily redacted.

POPLA rejected both the appeal. The assessor accepted ECP’s argument that the land was relevant land, accepted keeper liability, accepted the signage, and considered the stay to be beyond the applicable consideration period.
I am now trying to understand the best next step. Should I pay, submit a complaint to POPLA/BPA about the evidence and assessment, or wait to see whether Euro Car Parks issues a Letter Before Claim/court claim?

I would appreciate advice on whether there are strong grounds to continue defending this, especially around Heathrow airport land/byelaws, “relevant land” under POFA, and the fact that ECP incorrectly stated that I confirmed I was the driver.

turbo_20v · 27 August at 11:26AM

Hi, I’m in the same situation. I’m at stage 7, where ECP has submitted an evidence pack after my POPLA appeal. In their pack, they claim I stated: “I was present for only 2 minutes, which provided no reasonable opportunity to read, consider or accept any parking terms.”
This is incorrect — my original appeal was based solely on the fact that no driver details would be provided, and at no point did I mention being there for 2 minutes. I have no idea why they’ve included that statement, as it does not appear anywhere in my appeal.

Jame4ters · 27 August at 3:55PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6681128/popla-appeal-rejected-hilton-hotel-t2-euro-car-parks

Can you post a copy of the POPLA decision, suitably redacted?

Don’t go paying anything as I’m certain this place has been mentioned a few times before in here and ECP are wrong about the relevant land and POPLA are just wrong full stop

Jame4ters · 27 August at 3:56PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82116588#Comment_82116588

please start your own thread so that things don’t become confused

jalakmody · 27 August at 4:55PM

Assessor Name

Jessica Nuttall

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for parking without a valid pay by phone transaction.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • Euro Car Parks has failed to establish keeper liability. The site is Hilton Garden Inn – Heathrow – T2, within the Heathrow Airport environment. Airport land subject to statutory control/byelaws is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Therefore, POFA keeper liability cannot apply. Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof that the exact land is relevant land and not subject to Heathrow Airport byelaws or any other statutory control. • They cannot be held liable as registered keeper. • no parking event has been proven. • Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR images which only show entry and exit times. ANPR does not prove any actual period of parking, that the vehicle was parked in a bay, that the driver left the vehicle, or that a parking contract was accepted. • The vehicle was on site for only two minutes. This is a reasonable consideration period for a driver to enter, locate and read signs, understand any terms and payment requirement, decide whether to accept those terms, and leave. • The operator’s own evidence refers to a short stay/drop-off location and a tariff. Such terms cannot reasonably be read and accepted within seconds, especially at night. • Euro Car Parks is also put to strict proof of full landowner authority for this exact site, including a boundary map, the right to issue and pursue parking charges, the applicable terms, and confirmation of whether the land is subject to Heathrow Airport byelaws/statutory control. • Inadequate signage. • They wish for the PCN to be cancelled. The appellant has reiterated and expanded on their appeal within the motorist comments section. • The parking operator has made a false and unsupported statement that they confirmed they were the driver. • ECP has failed to answer the “not relevant land / airport byelaws” point. • ECP’s own evidence places the site at London Heathrow Airport. • ECP relies on the wrong BPA grace-period section. • ECP’s signage evidence is weak and does not prove contract formation. • The landowner authority evidence is heavily redacted and inadequate. In support of their appeal, the appellant submitted the following: • Appeal letter. • Rejection letter. This evidence has been considered in making my determination.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. The parking operator provided evidence of the signs on the car park, which advise that a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to have a valid pay by phone transaction. The appellant has provided a rejection letter and an appeal letter. The parking operator has provided a copy of the Land Registry title document for the site. This document identifies the ownership of the land and demonstrates that it is held under independent ownership rather than being subject to any arrangement that would remove it from the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied that the Land Registry document constitutes reliable and independent evidence of the land's status. The appellant has asserted that the site is not relevant land; however, they have not provided any documentary evidence, such as title information, statutory provisions, byelaws, or other material, to support this contention or to rebut the operator's evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I find no basis upon which to conclude that the land is governed by any statutory control that would exclude it from the scope of relevant land. Having carefully considered the submissions from both parties, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the operator has demonstrated that the site is relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, I am not persuaded by the appellant's grounds of appeal on this point. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The operator has provided automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) images showing the vehicle entering the site at 22:31 and exiting at 22:33. ANPR technology records the times at which a vehicle enters and exits a site by capturing images of the vehicle's registration number and recording the associated timestamps. It does not record the precise period for which a vehicle is parked; rather, it records the vehicle's period of presence on the site. In this case, the ANPR evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was on site for a total of three minutes between entry and exit. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the ANPR data is inaccurate, and I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was present on the site for approximately three minutes as recorded by the operator's system. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCOP) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. SCOP comes into effect from 1 October 2024. Any points raised going forward will be considered using SCOP apart from signs which will be considered within the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of practice version 9 as this will apply until December 2026. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice 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. In this case, the applicable consideration period is one minute. The ANPR evidence demonstrates that the vehicle remained on site for a period exceeding this allowance before exiting. Having considered the duration of the vehicle's stay, alongside the evidence showing that the site was well signed and illuminated, I am satisfied that the driver was afforded a reasonable opportunity to consider the parking terms. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. However, the Code advises that grace periods are not applicable to short stay areas where the parking of a vehicle is allowed for a limited period not greater than 30 minutes, such as drop off and pick up zones. In this case as the site was a short stay, motorist are not entitled to a grace period. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that clearly set out the terms. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage displayed throughout the site. Having reviewed this evidence, I am satisfied that there is a sufficient number of signs positioned at various locations across the car park to bring the parking terms and conditions to the attention of motorists. The signage appears frequent and prominently placed, such that drivers have the opportunity to review the terms before deciding whether to remain on site. The operator's evidence also demonstrates that the site is illuminated during hours of darkness. The photographs show that lighting is present within the car park and in the vicinity of the signs. As such, I am satisfied that the signage would remain visible and legible to motorists visiting the site at night. Having considered the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions were adequately displayed and that motorists using the site would have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to become aware of them, both during daylight hours and at night. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the signage was insufficient or that the terms were not adequately brought to the attention of the driver and a contract was formed. 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 copy of the redacted agreement sent meets the standards required by POPLA. Part of the document is redacted due to GDPR purposes. Based on the agreement presented, along with the camera technology and signage erected within the car park itself, I am satisfied the operator has permission from the landowner to manage and issue PCN's on the land when a breach of the advertised terms are observed. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. I acknowledge the appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the parking operator, POPLA is an appeals service only. Our role is to assess whether a Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly based on the evidence provide by both parties. If the appellant wishes to pursue a complaint about the parking operator itself, this is a matter that must be raised directly with the operator through its formal complaint’s procedure. Such issues fall outside the scope of POPLA's appeals process and cannot be considered as part of my assessment of the PCN. I do empathise that the appellant wants the PCN cancelled. It is simply not within our remit to allow an appeal which the motorist breached the parking condition. For further support you may wish to speak with Citizens Advice on 03444 111 444. Whilst I note the appellant has raised comments to POPLA after reviewing the operator’s case file, the comments expand on and reiterate the initial grounds raised and I have addressed those within my report. Therefore, the comments do not require any further consideration. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist failed to have a valid pay by phone transaction and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

cooldude255220 · 27 August at 5:04PM

The parking operator has provided a copy of the Land Registry title document for the site. This document identifies the ownership of the land and demonstrates that it is held under independent ownership rather than being subject to any arrangement that would remove it from the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied that the Land Registry document constitutes reliable and independent evidence of the land's status. The appellant has asserted that the site is not relevant land; however, they have not provided any documentary evidence, such as title information, statutory provisions, byelaws, or other material, to support this contention or to rebut the operator's evidence. In the absence of such evidence, I find no basis upon which to conclude that the land is governed by any statutory control that would exclude it from the scope of relevant land. Having carefully considered the submissions from both parties, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the operator has demonstrated that the site is relevant land for the purposes of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accordingly, I am not persuaded by the appellant's grounds of appeal on this point.

It sounds like the relevant land point wasn't argued strongly enough, but without seeing your appeal it's difficult to know.

Did you attach a copy of the byelaws?

Did you point out the map at schedule 1, which clearly shows where the byelaws apply?

Did you superimpose the location of the parking event on top and add that as another attachment to demonstrate that it's located within the area to which byelaws apply?

Or did you just say "it's not relevant land"?

jalakmody · 27 August at 6:16PM

I think you are right — I did not argue the relevant land point strongly enough with documentary evidence.

In my POPLA appeal I did say that the site was within the Heathrow Airport environment, that Heathrow airport land is subject to byelaws/statutory control, and that it is therefore not “relevant land” under POFA Schedule 4. I also pointed out that ECP’s own evidence described the site as Hilton Garden Inn T2, Cessna Road, London Heathrow Airport.

However, I did not attach the actual Heathrow byelaws PDF, did not specifically point to Schedule 1 and the airport boundary map, and did not create/superimpose a map showing the Hilton Garden Inn T2/drop-off area within the byelaws boundary.

POPLA rejected the appeal and said the operator had provided Land Registry evidence showing independent ownership/relevant land, and that I had not provided documentary evidence such as title information, statutory provisions, byelaws, or other material to rebut that.

So yes, I now understand the mistake was relying mainly on the argument rather than attaching the actual byelaws, Schedule 1 map, and location overlay.