The POPLA decision is not binding on you and you DO NOT pay. For now, email the following formal complaint about this assessors utter incompetence to POPLA:
Subject: Formal complaint – material errors, QA failure, and concerns about independence (POPLA ref: [REF], Assessor: Paul Garrity, Site: Sheffield Grosvenor Casino, Decision date: [DATE])
Dear Sirs,
Please register this as a formal complaint about the above decision. I am not asking for a reassessment; I know POPLA does not rehear cases. I am asking for a lead-assessor review of the reasoning, a written explanation addressing each point below, and confirmation of what corrective action will be taken. This complaint will be copied to my MP and used to question POPLA’s independence and competence.
Executive summary – the most obvious flaws
1. Paid session conceded; “not authorised” upheld
The operator admits a paid session existed (their own words: a major keying error) and says the £20 charter outcome would have applied. Upholding a full PCN on a “not authorised” premise in the face of an admitted paid session is irrational and rewards poor operator practice.
2. Landowner status mischaracterised
The decision describes Bransby Wilson as “the landowner”. The exhibit says Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd is a managing agent and that authority applies where the land is not owned by BWPSL. A redacted, internally inconsistent paper naming an agent does not prove landowner authority. POPLA should have required an unredacted, continuous chain from the actual landholder to the operator, current on the material date and covering this site.
3. PoFA keeper liability reduced to postage dates
The decision looks at timing but ignores pleaded content defects that are dispositive:
• PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(e)(i): the NtK text invites payment only if the recipient was the driver, rather than inviting the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
• PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a): no specified period of parking; ANPR entry/exit instants are not a parking period.
Strict compliance is required; none of this was analysed.
4. Consideration and grace periods ignored
Entry around 14:02 and ticket around 14:07 meets the consideration period. A two-hour ticket to ~16:07 with exit at ~16:09 sits within the end-of-stay grace. The operator even asserts a 30-minute site grace. The decision does not engage with this at all.
5. “Authority” document lacks integrity and probative value
The paper is “made” 01/04/2011 but signed 28/10/2012, uses “Bransby Wilson Ltd” in the recital but “Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions Ltd” in clause 4, repeats the “LICENCE AGREEMENT” header mid-document with a second clause 4, and redacts the client identity and most of the site schedule. Clause 1 grants only an initial three-month term with continuation by agreement and terminable on one month’s notice. There is no unredacted evidence of a subsisting, site-specific mandate on the material date. Accepting this collage as proof of standing was unreasonable.
6. Retrofitting the NtK with later photos
The decision leans on larger, later images in the bundle to justify the NtK instead of assessing the NtK as served. A defective or incomplete NtK is not cured by evidence produced later.
7.Reliance on rhetoric
The operator’s “generic template” slur is repeated but never evidenced. It does not rebut any pleaded defect and should not feature in a reasoned decision.
Why this matters
These are not marginal judgement calls. They are basic legal and evidential errors: conflating agent with landowner; ignoring an admitted paid session; substituting PoFA timing for PoFA content; overlooking grace; and treating a spliced, redacted document as authority. This undermines confidence in POPLA’s competence and independence.
Requested actions
1. Lead-assessor review of this decision’s reasoning and a written response addressing points 1–7 above for the record.
2. Confirmation that this decision has been marked as a QA failure and what corrective guidance will be issued to assessors on:
• PoFA content (9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(a));
• Distinguishing landowner, managing agent, and operator and requiring an unredacted, continuous chain of authority;
• Handling admitted keying-error cases under the Appeals Charter;
• Correct application of consideration and grace periods;
• Assessing the NtK as served rather than back-filled by later exhibits.
3. Confirmation of what process changes POPLA will implement to prevent recurrence.
Further action and context
I have no confidence in this outcome or in POPLA’s independence. I will send a copy of this complaint to my MP to raise the question of oversight and independence in Parliament, given POPLA operates with ATA permission while routinely accepting redacted, incoherent “authority” papers and overlooking statutory requirements.
When the Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 is finally enforced, bodies that cannot meet basic standards thanks to incompetence or poor training, should have no role. In the meantime, I expect a full written explanation for the record.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
This situation has been successfully challenged in court in the past. The car park signage prominently displays Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions as the operator, while the PCN is issued by Minster Baywatch.
These are distinct companies registered separately at Companies House. No clear contractual link is shown to justify enforcement by Minster Baywatch. Ambiguity in contract terms must be interpreted in favor of the consumer. Drivers cannot be expected to contract with a party not clearly identified on the signage.
The signage creates confusion about who the contracting party is. No reasonable driver would believe they were entering a contract with Minster Baywatch. Minster Baywatch has not demonstrated they are authorised to enforce parking at a site operated by Bransby Wilson.
Under CRA 2015, Section 69, any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer. The PCN is therefore legally unenforceable.
Whilst any initial appeal will fail, there is a possibility that POPLA would uphold the argument but even if it doesn't, it would fail if they ever tried to make claim in court.
There is another point that has succeeded at POPLA... Is there a timestamp on those photos on the Notice to Keeper (NtK)? If not, then they have been cropped or altered, which is a breach of the PPSCoP section 7.3(b) which states:
Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a
parking charge unless: the images bear an accurate time and date stamp.
Also, section 7.4 applies...
Parking operators must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic
evidence other than:
a) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with their GDPR
obligations; or
b) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) as there is no invitation for the Keeper to pay the charge. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal which will be rejected but will get you the POPLA code. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Minster Baywatch (MB)has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. MB have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.