DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 76555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: June 15, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
URGENT
My appeal to POPLA was unsuccessful. I genuinely believed it
would be upheld based on the points I raised.
Here is a POPLA summary:
'''''''''
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
due to exceeding the free period without payment.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds
of appeal. • The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with
the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the appellant has
explained why they consider it is not compliant with several
aspects of PoFA. • They have questioned the signage at the site,
the signage is misleading and inconsistent, prominently
displayed signs state: “Maximum Stay 5 Hours”, which would lead
a reasonable person to assume that parking is free for five
hours, in reality only three hours is free, which is mentioned
only in much smaller text, which is not easily readable,
especially for visitors in a hurry or under pressure. •
Mitigating circumstances were not considered by the parking
operator, the overstay was due to an unexpected vehicle
breakdown, making is impossible for the driver to leave the car
park within the time limit. • Despite this being explained to
the parking operator within an initial appeal, the parking
operator made no reference to this within their rejection, and
failed to demonstrate it had been considered. After reviewing
the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates their
grounds of appeal, expands on their grounds of appeal. The
appellant has provided photo of a parking sign from the site as
evidence to support their appeal. The above evidence will be
considered in making my decision.
Assessor supporting rational for 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 signs make it clear that motorists using the car
park can stay for an initial three hours free, after this time
tariff apply, with a maximum stay of five hours, and if these
terms and conditions are not met a charge of £100 will be
issued. . The images of the vehicle captured upon entry and exit
confirm the time the vehicle was on this land for three hours 42
minutes. The operator has evidenced from its system report that
there was no payment registered for this vehicle to park on this
land on the date of the event, they have also provided a copy of
the appellant’s initial appeal, which I will refer to below. I
will now consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine
if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Any customer service
matters related to the operator's response fall outside of
POPLA's jurisdiction. POPLA's responsibility is solely to assess
whether the PCN was issued correctly according to the advertised
terms and conditions. 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 28 day deadline mentioned by the appellant refers to
the period the parking operator has before it can transfer
liability from the driver to the registered keeper, and not the
period the parking operator has to allow a motorist to pay the
PCN. This sector Code of Practice has been jointly created by
the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International
Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on the Government’s
Private Parking Code of Practice, which was published in
February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June 2022. The new
Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is stipulated in
the Code that the parking operator needs to comply with all
elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026. Therefore, for
any aspects of this case relating to signage, I will be
referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This is
applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February
2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) monitors how
operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice
setting out the criteria operators must meet. Section 19.1 of
the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that
make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. Section
19.3 of the Code says parking operators need to have signs that
clearly set out the terms. Signs in general tend to have
meaning, and signs within a car park are there to explain
relevant terms to motorists wishing to park, in this case the
terms mentioned above. The appellant has provided photo of a
parking sign from the site, the parking operator has provided a
series of photos of the site, along with a map with positions of
signs highlighted. I can see from the evidence pack there is an
entrance sign. Entrance signs are an important part of
establishing a contract and would put the driver on notice that
terms and conditions applied. Further, specific terms and
conditions signage are placed around this site, detailing the
terms of use. These signs are in contrasting colours, and I
believe they would have been clear and conspicuous to drivers
who wish to use the site. I am satisfied from the evidence
provided that the signage at the site meets the requirements of
the BPA Code of Practice and that the motorist had sufficient
opportunity to familiarise themselves with the terms and
conditions. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the
terms and conditions on arrival, and, if you agree with them,
stay or if you did not agree with them leave the site. Whether
the appellant read the terms and conditions is irrelevant, the
appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to read them.
While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding
mitigating circumstances and a vehicle breakdown, these issues
were not raised in their initial appeal to the parking operator.
As such, it is unclear how the parking operator could have
addressed matters they were not made aware of at that stage.
While I appreciate the appellant sharing such information now,
this information should have been disclosed to the parking
operator. I appreciate the motorist did not intend to breach the
terms and conditions, the signage at the site is clear that
exceeding the free period without payment, regardless of the
reason, would result in the issue of a PCN. By exceeding the
free period without payment, the motorist has accepted the
potential consequence of incurring a PCN. Despite the
appellant's comments on the parking operator's evidence, I have
not found any information that has a material impact on my
assessment of the PCN. After considering the evidence from both
parties, the motorist parked in excess of the free period
without payment, 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’d really appreciate any advice on what steps to take next,
especially as I genuinely believe I raised some legitmate
points.
#Post#: 76569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: June 15, 2025, 10:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry about an unsuccessful POPLA decision. It is not
binding on you. POPLA assessors are not legally trained and can
often come up with uneducated decisions. The assessor in this
case has conveniently ignored the PoFA failures.
Never mind. You now move on to the next phase. You can safely
ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless
to actually do anything except try and make the low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.
Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). When you
do, come back and we will give you a response.
#Post#: 76571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: ixxy
Date: June 15, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to counter your surprise and play devil's advocate for a a
moment.
1. Thats a highly technical argument and may have no merit, its
the interpretation of some posters on here, until it actually
gets upheld in court it's not going to win any appeals.
2. Again a techical argument beyond the ability of most POPLA
assessors abilities or remit to adjudicate on.
3. It's fairly clear from the pictures posted of the signage
what the rules are.
4. Don't know about that one.
5. It could be argued the breakdown this case was not a
frustration of contract, you could have paid for the extra time.
If you'd been in the car park for ore than 5 hours then it would
have come into play.
It's not quite as black and white as some posters here would
like you to believe.
Next steps, pay it and it will go away or do nothing. You will
probably get bombarded with debt collection letters that you can
ignore. If you receive a letter of claim don't ignore it, come
back here for advice on how to answer it.
There's a small chance it will go to court most don't, they get
discontinued before the hearing. Worst case if it does and you
lose you'll be somewhere in the region of £250 out of pocket.
You have zero chance of getting a CCJ is you then pay what the
court orders in the time allowed.
#Post#: 76573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: b789
Date: June 15, 2025, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry about the technicality being ignored by the POPLA
assessor. Remember, they are not truly independent because they
earn their money from the unregulated private parking firms they
are adjudicating on.
Additionally, even if the technical point is upheld in a court
claim, it would have zero bearing on any other court hearing.
The only way a judgement in the county court can have any
bearing on another hearing is if it has been to appeal and
upheld. Even then, it would only be "persuasive", not "binding".
It would need to go to further appeal to a higher court (High
Court or Supreme Court) for any decision to be "binding".
However, I have discussed the points I make [PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)]
with a very long serving district judge and he agrees that it is
a valid technical point and, if argued coherently, would stand
up. However, POPLA assessors are not legally trained and most
judges in a small claims hearing will not even notice it because
they will have skim read the papers for less than 10 minutes
before the hearing, if you're lucky.
So the advice remains, don't pay it unless you are not prepared
to fight this all the way.
#Post#: 77124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: June 19, 2025, 3:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your responses — they are greatly appreciated.
It's genuinely interesting to see the different perspectives
shared by the respondents.
From what’s been said, the advice still stands: don’t pay unless
you're prepared to challenge it all the way.
Could you briefly outline what the process of fighting this case
would involve?
I’m asking because if it turns out to be too difficult of a
process with a likelihood of losing, I may decide it’s simpler
to just pay it.
#Post#: 77126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 19, 2025, 4:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrpopa link ---
>
> Thank you for your responses — they are greatly appreciated.
It's genuinely interesting to see the different perspectives
shared by the respondents.
>
> From what’s been said, the advice still stands: don’t pay
unless you're prepared to challenge it all the way.
>
> Could you briefly outline what the process of fighting this
case would involve?
>
> I’m asking because if it turns out to be too difficult of a
process with a likelihood of losing, I may decide it’s simpler
to just pay it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Paperwork.
Ignore debt collectors
Respond to a Letter of Claim
File court papers - specify a hearing in person at your local
court, and a defence you will get help with
Wait for Nexus to discontinue before the deadline for paying the
court fee. It will cost them more to attend than the money
they’re trying to extract from you.
If they don’t, the court will read the points POPLA ignored and
find in your favour.
#Post#: 77318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: June 20, 2025, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your response.
'and a defence you will get help with', does this mean I would
have to find a solicitor?
#Post#: 77319--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 20, 2025, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrpopa link ---
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> 'and a defence you will get help with', does this mean I would
have to find a solicitor?
>
--- End Quote ---
No.
The whole point of this forum is to offer free advice, and
unless the solicitor specialises in parking then the free advice
you’ll get here will be better than anything you pay for. The
only thing a solicitor will do is manage some of the paperwork,
so as long as you can follow instructions here (some can’t) then
you’ll be fine.
#Post#: 89636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: mrpopa
Date: September 12, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully all is well.
It has been a few months and I still have not received the
'Letter of Claim'. Only one letter from the debt collectors but
that is it.
Is this normal and when should I expect to receive the 'letter
of claim'?
As always, thank you for the help.
#Post#: 89643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gallagher Retail Park, Coventry – PCN for Over 3-Hour Stay
(Breakdown Incident)
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 12, 2025, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrpopa link ---
>
> Is this normal and when should I expect to receive the 'letter
of claim'?
>
--- End Quote ---
They have up to 6 years from the date of the parking event to
issue a claim, but there's no good reason to take that long.
12-18 months is relatively normal, but could be more, could be
less.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page