Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Another Parking Charge
« on: February 02, 2026, 03:37:52 pm »
Well predictably Popla refused the appeal, would you like to see it here? and whats next?
I ran their reply:
Short answer: it very likely is AI-generated (or at least heavily AI-assisted) — though you can’t prove it with 100% certainty.
____
How they summarised my appeal:
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parked or waiting in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They, as the registered keeper, were not present and are not required to identify the driver. • The badge was visible at ground level, even if not visible to an elevated camera. • The signage requirement does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments. • The PCN was issued without considering disabled access needs, breaching the Equality Act 2010. • The camera evidence cannot prove the badge was not displayed, only that it was not visible from that angle. • The operator has not identified the driver. • They are not required to name the driver as the registered keeper. • The operator must fully comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability. • The Notice to Keeper does not meet all mandatory POFA requirements. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of the Blue Badge as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The terms and conditions of the car park state vehicles parked, stopped or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times. Breach any of the terms and conditions a £100 PCN will be issued. The parking operator has provided images of the vehicle parked in a disabled bay without a valid Blue Badge. The appellant explains the badge was visible at ground level, even if not visible to an elevated camera. The signage requirement does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments. They did not need to provide additional proof of disability beyond the Blue Badge. The PCN was issued without considering disabled access needs, breaching the Equality Act 2010. The camera evidence cannot prove the badge was not displayed, only that it was not visible from that angle. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, and I note they have advised the driver displayed the Blue Badge on the front seat due to the driver’s mobility issues. The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as have a disability equally with those who do not. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the parking operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the driver had a disability. The parking operator has issued the PCN as the driver failed to display a valid Blue Badge in the windscreen in accordance with the terms and conditions. As such, the parking operator would issue a PCN to any vehicle in breach of the terms What actions a parking operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the parking operator. Therefore, if the appellant considers the parking operator has not made a reasonable adjustment, the appellant may wish to raise this with the parking operator directly. The appellant states the operator has not identified the driver. They are not required to name the driver as the registered keeper. The operator must fully comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability. The Notice to Keeper does not meet all mandatory POFA requirements. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. I note the appellant has referred to section 8.1.1 (d) of the Single Code. However, I am satisfied the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore has correctly transferred liability of the PCN to the registered keeper. I appreciate the appellant’s comments regarding the Appeals Charter. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Under paragraph e of the code it explains where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold, that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice. In this case, the appeal did not raise the driver was a Blue Badge holder, therefore there was no requirement for the parking operator to request evidence or reduce the PCN to £20. Whilst I note the appellant has provided a copy of the Blue Badge, this was not provided to the parking operator, therefore the operator could not take the evidence into consideration at the initial appeals stage. Ultimately, when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
I ran their reply:
Short answer: it very likely is AI-generated (or at least heavily AI-assisted) — though you can’t prove it with 100% certainty.
____
How they summarised my appeal:
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to parked or waiting in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They, as the registered keeper, were not present and are not required to identify the driver. • The badge was visible at ground level, even if not visible to an elevated camera. • The signage requirement does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments. • The PCN was issued without considering disabled access needs, breaching the Equality Act 2010. • The camera evidence cannot prove the badge was not displayed, only that it was not visible from that angle. • The operator has not identified the driver. • They are not required to name the driver as the registered keeper. • The operator must fully comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability. • The Notice to Keeper does not meet all mandatory POFA requirements. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal. The appellant has provided a copy of the Blue Badge as evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision
POPLA is a single stage appeal service, we are impartial and independent of the sector. We consider the evidence provided by both parties to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly by the parking operator and to determine if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park or site. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The terms and conditions of the car park state vehicles parked, stopped or waiting in marked disabled bays must display a valid disabled badge face up inside the front windscreen at all times. Breach any of the terms and conditions a £100 PCN will be issued. The parking operator has provided images of the vehicle parked in a disabled bay without a valid Blue Badge. The appellant explains the badge was visible at ground level, even if not visible to an elevated camera. The signage requirement does not override the duty to make reasonable adjustments. They did not need to provide additional proof of disability beyond the Blue Badge. The PCN was issued without considering disabled access needs, breaching the Equality Act 2010. The camera evidence cannot prove the badge was not displayed, only that it was not visible from that angle. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, and I note they have advised the driver displayed the Blue Badge on the front seat due to the driver’s mobility issues. The principles of the Equality Act 2010 are to treat people who are recognised as have a disability equally with those who do not. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s points, when the parking operator issued the PCN, it would not have been aware that the driver had a disability. The parking operator has issued the PCN as the driver failed to display a valid Blue Badge in the windscreen in accordance with the terms and conditions. As such, the parking operator would issue a PCN to any vehicle in breach of the terms What actions a parking operator takes thereafter is solely at the discretion of the parking operator. Therefore, if the appellant considers the parking operator has not made a reasonable adjustment, the appellant may wish to raise this with the parking operator directly. The appellant states the operator has not identified the driver. They are not required to name the driver as the registered keeper. The operator must fully comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability. The Notice to Keeper does not meet all mandatory POFA requirements. The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper. For an operator to transfer liability of unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. Having viewed the notice to keeper issued to the appellant I am satisfied that the operator has complied with Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of PoFA 2012, and that liability of the parking charge was successfully transferred to the keeper at the time of the event. I note the appellant has referred to section 8.1.1 (d) of the Single Code. However, I am satisfied the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012 and therefore has correctly transferred liability of the PCN to the registered keeper. I appreciate the appellant’s comments regarding the Appeals Charter. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. Under paragraph e of the code it explains where a Blue Badge has not been displayed but the holder of the Blue Badge supplies a copy of the Blue Badge they hold, that would have been valid at the time and in the circumstances identified in the notice. In this case, the appeal did not raise the driver was a Blue Badge holder, therefore there was no requirement for the parking operator to request evidence or reduce the PCN to £20. Whilst I note the appellant has provided a copy of the Blue Badge, this was not provided to the parking operator, therefore the operator could not take the evidence into consideration at the initial appeals stage. Ultimately, when parking on private land it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver parked in a disabled bay without clearly displaying a disabled badge 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. Any questions relating to payment of the parking charge should be directed to the operator.
