You need to post documentation rather than paraphrasing if you want advice here.
Fair point, here's the PCN.
https://imgpile.com/p/RELE1e5 https://imgpile.com/p/UouysycMy rushed submission to POPLA:
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full, unredacted report.
POPLA's response:
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I must advise that it is not POPLA’s role to source
specific evidence on behalf of either party; POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was
issued correctly in the !rst instance. While I can see that the appellant has requested various
pieces of evidence within their grounds of appeal and comments, I will solely be addressing the key
grounds of appeal raised. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers whether the parking
operator issued the PCN correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the
use of the car park as set out on the signs. When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a
contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. For the avoidance of
doubt, the signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Both the appellant
and the operator have provided photographs of the signage. In this speci!c car park, the terms and
conditions state that motorists must purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle registration
number, or have a valid paybyphone payment. The signs also state that a £100 PCN will be issued
for a breach of the terms. Within its evidence !le, the operator has provided a copy of the PCN
detailing all of the relevant information as requested by the appellant. For the avoidance of doubt,
the operator is holding the appellant liable for the PCN as the keeper of the vehicle under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as driver details were not provided within their appeal. In this
case, I can see that the PCN was issued for failing to purchase a valid ticket. The operator has also
provided screenshots of its payment reports, which demonstrate that a payment had not been
made in connection with the appellant’s vehicle that day. Within their appeal to POPLA, the
appellant has provided a screenshot of a bank transaction, demonstrating a transaction made to
the operator during their stay. Although I can see that the appellant paid for parking, it is evident
that they did not provide their full, correct vehicle registration number when doing so. By the
appellant’s own admission, their ticket/receipt contained their partial vehicle registration number.
The ticket would therefore not have been valid for the appellant’s vehicle. It is important to explain
that the site is managed by automatic number plate recognition cameras and it is therefore
imperative that motorists provide their full, correct vehicle registration numbers when paying for
parking. As the appellant did not do so, a PCN was automatically issued by the system as a
payment could not be traced in connection with their vehicle. While I acknowledge that the
appellant has indicated that the payment machine was not working, the appellant was able to pay
For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points,
and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • They
paid for parking and had a valid ticket. • The ticket displays their partial vehicle registration
number, which they assume mimics the way receipts do not show the full credit card number. • The
payment machine did not work so they paid by phone. • The operator has not honoured its
agreement by allowing motorists to pay by phone, then issuing them with Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs). • They will be making a complaint to the landowner. The appellant has also requested the
following evidence: • An explanation of the allegation and evidence; • A close up photograph of the
sign; • A record of payments made from three hours prior to the entry of their vehicle and three
hours after its exit; • Provide a copy of the contract between the operator and the motorist setting
out the terms and conditions; • A copy of the PCN setting out its reason for issue, address and date
and time of the event; • detail how the PCN was brought to their attention; • state whether the PCN
was issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and state which liability type they are being
held liable under; • state the amount of the PCN; • explain the factual or legal basis for the amount
being claimed; and • provide a calculation for the amount of the charge and any interest. To
support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • A screenshot of their bank statement; • A copy
of the operator’s response to their appeal; and • A photograph of a sign. This evidence has been
considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has
referred to the operator’s transaction report and pointed out which transaction belongs to their
vehicle. The appellant has requested a copy of the full, unredacted report.for parking. The operator’s transaction reports also demonstrate that many other motorists were
able to pay by machine/by phone. I am therefore satis!ed that there were working payment
methods. With regards to legitimate use, section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of
Practice sets out how parking operators must address appeals from motorists who have paid, but
did not provide their full, correct vehicle registration number when doing so. In this case, the
appellant did not provide the operator with any evidence of their payment at the !rst stage of
appeal. As the operator was unable to locate a transaction with a similar vehicle registration
number to the appellant’s within its reports, it was unable to determine whether a payment was
actually made for the vehicle, for the correct location. As such, the operator was not able to take
this into consideration and respond to the appellant’s appeal accordingly. I acknowledge that the
appellant has provided a copy of the operator’s response to their appeal, but this does not a"ect
the validity of the PCN. In terms of POPLA’s role, we can only assess whether the parking conditions
were breached. I understand that the appellant has stated that they will make a complaint to the
landowner, but this cannot have any bearing on my decision. Furthermore, the appellant appears
to be questioning the amount of the parking charge. For the avoidance of doubt, the charge does
not represent a loss. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-pro!le case,
Parking Eye v Beavis, and decided that a charge did not need to re#ect any actual loss incurred by a
parking operator or landowner; the charge simply needed to be in the region of £85. The Court’s
full judgement in the case is available online should the appellant want to read it. After considering
the evidence from both parties, I am satis!ed that the appellant did not make a valid payment for
their vehicle and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the
parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
Show Posts