CUP have submitted their evidence to POPLA as below; There is a pack as a PDF but I don't have a way of redacting any info without printing (30 pages).
PCN Details • Parking operator: CUP Enforcement • PCN number: 116522 • VRM: TON13X • Method of issue: PoFA Notice to Keeper Postal Notice MNPR • Date of contravention: 19/11/2025 • Date notice sent: 27/11/2025 • Location: Trade City • Reason for issue: Parked on or within a no-parking area. Parking Policy: CUP Enforcement has a valid rolling contract in place with their client at the location. A copy has been included within this evidence pack, along with the site map. The site is private land and parking conditions signage is on display at the location. The parking area is monitored by wardens. Any vehicle found parked within a no-parking area be issued with a PCN. Case Summary ● The vehicle was observed parked at the site on 19/11/2025 in a no parking area; on a yellow-lined pedestrian pathway. Such areas are universally recognised as spaces where parking is not permitted. Photographic evidence was captured on the day. ● As the motorist had accepted the terms by parking their vehicle at the location, a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle by post. ● An appeal was received from the keeper on 08/12/2025 wherein the appellant’s statement confirmed he was the keeper and that he would not be naming the driver. ● No evidence was submitted to support any authority to use the no-parking area. ● As a PoFA had been issued, the keeper was confirmed, the evidence confirmed the vehicle was parked in a no parking area in view of the terms and conditions, the vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian pathway, the vehicle was not exempt from parking conditions and no evidence was submitted to support any authorisation to use the space, the appeal was rejected. • A reminder was issued on 29/12/2025. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that operators are required to have signage that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Signs are displayed to give notice to motorists that they are entering private land and terms and conditions are in place for parking. CUP Enforcement is not required to set out individual terms for motorists’ notification. The responsibility is with the motorist when they enter the site to look for the signs detailing the full terms of parking. Additionally, there are clear floor markings at the site. Parking terms and conditions signs were on display at the location. Signage can be seen within the sample images, site map (enclosed within this evidence pack) and supporting images. The images combined with the site map show the signage was in view and in close proximity to the vehicle, and the vehicle was parked on the no-parking area, on the yellow lined pedestrian pathway markings. o Within the POPLA, the keeper submitted multiple new grounds of appeal, which we understand is not permitted at the POPLA stage as the appellant is only required to expand on the appeal points that were initially submitted at the initial appeal stage. We submit the following: o The evidence shows that adequate signage was present. o A PoFA was issued therefore the keeper is now liable for the charge as he has refused to name the driver. o The photographic evidence confirms the vehicle was parked on a yellow lined pedestrian pathway. o The area is a no-parking area, therefore parking is not permitted in the area where the vehicle was parked. o The grace period allowance is not a period of free parking, refers to parking spaces where payment has been made for use of the parking area, for a particular amount of time, or where/if parking is permitted. The location above is private land and a signposted no-parking area where no payment was made, there was no maximum parking time frame and motorists that are not exempt are not permitted to utilise the space, therefore, the grace period is not applicable in this instance. o The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (SCoP) sets the standards with which parking operators that are regulated by The British Parking Organisation and The International Parking Community need to comply. Section 2.19a of SCoP sets the definition of parking as: a vehicle entering and remaining on controlled land. Section 2.19b of SCoP defines the action of being parked as: a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. A vehicle may be deemed to be parked whether or not the driver has vacated the vehicle/turned off the ignition. The photographic images captured the vehicle parked for 7 minutes and 30 seconds. As parking was prohibited in this area, there was a breach of the terms and conditions indeed. Parking standards at the location are a matter of safety, security and etiquette. The motorist failed in their responsibility after they parked in a no-parking area. The regulations of parking on the site clearly state the requirements. CUP Enforcement has a written and signed agreement with the landowner giving it rightful authority to fulfil their duty in carrying out enforcement on this land. All CUP enforcement on the site is in full compliance with BPA parking regulations. The parking charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was made within 14 days, and held at that amount after the appeal response. No payment has been received. The charge now stands at £100. When parking on private land, the contract formed is between the motorist and the parking operator. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure they have sought out, read and complied with the parking operator’s terms and conditions, which are stated on the signage if they want to use land that does not belong to them. As can be seen from the images and the site map provided in this evidence pack, the signboards and yellow lined areas are clear, legible and in prominent positions. The motorist had the opportunity to observe the terms. As a PoFA was issued; the keeper has been confirmed; utility of the site was gained; the vehicle was parked on private land in a no-parking area, adequate signage, floor markings and parking terms were on display; the vehicle was not exempt; and no evidence to support authorisation to use the no parking area was submitted; we stand by the decision to issue the PCN and request the refusal of the appeal. Please see the uploaded items for the operator images and the evidence pack complete with supporting documents.
