DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 14, 2025, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: sausage1971 link ---
>
>
> Having reviewed the PCN, I can see that it specifies both the
date and time of the parking event. I am therefore satisfied
that it is compliant in this respect.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Complete horse poo - the date and time of the parking event has
nothing to do with the 'period of parking' requirement in PoFA -
POPLA keep using this twisted wording to bail their clients out.
#Post#: 98132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: November 14, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised, but not surprised, at the incompetence of POPLA.
I think I know the form, ignore everything until I get a LoC?
#Post#: 98143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another clear example of the utter incompetence at POPLA. You DO
NOT pay. A POPLA decision is NOT binding on you.
You will soon start to receive useless debt recovery letters.
You can safely ignore all debt collectors. They are powerless to
do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit
on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Eventually you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB
Legal and after you respond to that, a county court claim.
You will defend the claim with the defence we provide and in due
course, I can guarantee with 99.9% certainty that the claim will
eventually either be struck out or discontinued. You won't be
paying a penny to MET if you follow the advice.
In the meantime, you can send the following formal complaint to
POPLA about that legal embarrassing appeal decision:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: POPLA Decision – MET Parking Services, PCN AB22929772
(McDonald’s Bow) – Fundamental Legal Error, Misapplication of
Code, and Failure to Engage with Evidence
>
> To: POPLA Lead Adjudicator
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I lodge a formal complaint regarding the decision by Assessor
Alexandra Roby in PCN AB22929772 (MET Parking Services,
“McDonald’s Bow”). The decision exhibits fundamental legal
error, selective and inconsistent application of Codes, and a
wholesale failure to engage with the evidence actually supplied.
As presently trained, the assessor is not fit to determine
statutory keeper liability or Code compliance.
>
> Executive summary
> [indent]1. PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(a) was mis-stated and
misapplied. The NtK cites a single point in time supported by
one manually taken photograph. A moment is not a “period of
parking”.
> 2. The Single Code’s arrival consideration period (s.5.1) was
ignored. POPLA treated duration as irrelevant, collapsing
contract formation into a single un-timed snapshot.
> 3. Standing was waved through despite a line-by-line PPSCoP
14.1(a)–(j) failure in the “Letter of Authority” and a lone
contract page that cures nothing.
> 4. The decision “Code-switched”: BPA CoP was used to sidestep
Single Code signage duties, yet the Single Code Appeals Charter
was invoked to justify a £20 stance—while s.5.1 was ignored.
> 5. The assessor refused to consider Equality Act/reasonable
adjustments in a disabled-bay case as “new”, when they are
intrinsic to the allegation.[/indent]
>
> Determinative legal error: PoFA 9(2)(a)
> [indent]• What PoFA requires: “the period of parking to which
the notice relates.”
> • What MET produced: a single, manually taken photograph and
an NtK stating one date/time. No observation period. No
duration.
> • What POPLA held: a single timestamp equals a “period of
parking”.[/indent]
>
> This is wrong in law. A period is an interval. An instant is
not.
>
> Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (County Court appeal 2023)
confirms the point: recording a single instant is insufficient;
there must be a short period specified or evidenced. Brennan is
a County Court APPEAL judgment. While not binding like a Court
of Appeal authority, it is PERSUASIVE: a reasoned decision by a
higher-tier judge on the same statutory wording in the same
jurisdiction. Persuasive authority demands serious engagement;
it is not optional gloss. The decision engages with neither the
statute nor Brennan’s reasoning.
>
> Consideration period and contract formation (Single Code
s.5.1)
> The Single Code requires a consideration period on arrival
before terms can bind a driver. MET provided no timed
observation and no log. POPLA nonetheless declared the vehicle
“parked” from a single image and treated duration as immaterial.
That position erases s.5.1 and replaces contract formation with
conjecture. It is not adjudication; it is assumption.
>
> Standing – PPSCoP s.14.1(a)–(j) not met
> I supplied an itemised analysis of the operator’s “Letter of
Authority” (25/08/2016) and the solitary contract page. Outcome:
> [indent]• Met: (a) identity (McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd).
> • Partly: (d) duration (initial 9 months from 31/08/2010, then
rolling). (h) only partial.
> • Not met: (b) boundary plan/site schedule; (c) byelaws; (e)
defined parking terms (free period, tariffs, exemptions); (f)
method of issuing charges; (g) responsibility for
planning/advertising consents; (i) documentation for authorised
bodies; (j) appeals approach.[/indent]
>
> The single contract page cures none of those omissions. PPSCoP
14.1 requires contemporaneous, site-specific written authority
(or the full contract with schedules) addressing (a)–(j). The
assessor ignored this mandatory list and substituted a
conclusory “signed letter + many signs” test. That is not the
Code.
>
> Code inconsistency
> The decision adopts the BPA CoP for signage (to avoid Single
Code signage implementation), yet leans on the Single Code
Appeals Charter for the £20 “offer”, while refusing to apply the
same Single Code’s s.5.1. This cherry-picking is arbitrary and
outcome-driven.
>
> Equality Act context (disabled bay)
> In a disabled-bay case, reasonable adjustments are
intrinsic—not “new grounds”. Excluding them at the comments
stage is a procedural error and defeats the protective purpose
of the law.
>
> Requested actions
> Quality review and corrective guidance to assessors:
> [indent]• A timestamp or single photograph is not a “period of
parking” under PoFA 9(2)(a).
> • Where no timed observation exists, an immediate breach
finding is unsafe in light of Single Code s.5.1.
> • PPSCoP 14.1 requires site-specific, contemporaneous
authority addressing (a)–(j); generic letters and isolated pages
are not sufficient.
> • County Court appeal judgments (e.g., Brennan) are persuasive
and must be substantively engaged with.[/indent]
>
> Targeted retraining for the assessor on PoFA Schedule 4,
Single Code s.5.1 and s.14.1, evidence sufficiency, and the
distinction between binding and persuasive authority.
>
> Audit: include this decision in the next audit sample for
adverse-variance review. The errors here are basic, repeated,
and corrosive of trust in POPLA’s legal standards.
>
> Please acknowledge this complaint and confirm the steps you
will take. Your response will be retained and provided to
stakeholders considering reforms under the Private Parking (Code
of Practice) Act 2019.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
> Registered Keeper
> PCN: AB22929772
> Site: McDonald’s Bow
> Operator: MET Parking Services
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 98149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: November 14, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, will hold fire until LoC arrives; will send that to
POPLA now
#Post#: 99944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: November 26, 2025, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Call that the brush off then.......
Dear *****
Your complaint about POPLA case 3862515108
Thank you for your web form received 14 November 2025, outlining
the reasons why you are unhappy with the decision that has been
reached by the assessor in your appeal. This was passed to me by
the POPLA team as I am responsible for investigating complaints.
It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our
website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal
service, and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree
with our decision.
Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with
the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal.
My role is not to determine if the decision is correct, but to
establish if the assessor has failed to follow the correct
process and identify whether a procedural error has occurred.
Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I am
satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the
evidence presented and the assessor has considered all of your
grounds of appeal. Therefore, no procedural error has occurred.
As POPLA is a one-stage process, there is no opportunity for you
to appeal the decision.
I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not
been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has
now ended and this response concludes our complaints process. It
will not be appropriate for us to correspond further on this
matter and all further correspondence will be noted on your case
but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further, through
other means, such as the Courts. For independent legal advice,
please contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or
call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
Yours sincerely,

Paul Garrity
POPLA Complaints
#Post#: 100015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 27, 2025, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brush off indeed.
But you know that you've got them when Mr Garrity fails to
engage with any of the key points.
He talks about 'procedural errors' but then fails to examine the
obvious error which directly relates to Keeper liability under
PoFA - how stupid is that?
There is no 'period of parking' stated on the NtK and therefore
keeper liability under PoFA cannot occur - the suggestion (by
the original assessor) that keeper liability does occur is
therefore a procedural error??
It could not be clearer and it cannot be by sheer accident that
Mr Garrity skips over that specific procedural error without
commenting. Of course, he cannot engage on that point because
the NtK clearly doesn't state the period of parking - if it did
contain the correct information then Mr Garrity would have
evidenced that fact.
#Post#: 100033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: sausage1971
Date: November 27, 2025, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. The frustration is that they cant be held to account
and wont even enter in to a correspondence which could lead to
the less robust complainants to take their decision as correct
and pay up.
#Post#: 100039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Met Parking Disabled Bay McDonalds Bow
DIR By: b789
Date: November 27, 2025, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Time to get the CMA involved with this corrupt cabal of the BPA,
their AOS members and POPLA. You can report POPLA to the CMA and
anchor it under the DMCC. Legally it’s not a ridiculous idea –
but it’s important to be clear what that can and cannot achieve,
and how best to frame it.
You can report POPLA to the CMA under the DMCC because POPLA
sits inside a chain of “commercial practices” that influence
whether consumers pay alleged parking debts. Under the DMCC’s
unfair commercial practices regime, a “product” is not just
goods for sale but also services and payment demands, including
demands made “in settlement of actual or purported liabilities”.
A “commercial practice” is any act or omission by a trader
relating to the promotion or supply of a product, and that
explicitly includes post-contract behaviour such as debt
collection and complaints handling. The guidance also makes
clear that platforms and intermediaries can fall within scope
even if they are not the ones directly selling to the consumer,
and that several different traders in the same chain can each be
caught by the rules.
In private parking, the real “product” is the alleged parking
debt and the enforcement process around it. BPA Approved
Operators issue PCNs and seek payment. POPLA is then used as the
mandatory ADR service. It is funded by operators on a per-appeal
basis but marketed to motorists as a free, independent appeals
service. POPLA’s decisions directly affect a consumer’s
“transactional decision” in DMCC terms, because they heavily
influence whether a motorist pays the alleged debt or chooses to
defend it. On that basis there is a credible argument that
POPLA, alongside the BPA as code-owner and promoter, is engaged
in commercial practices within the meaning of the DMCC, because
it sits in the middle of a structured process designed to induce
payment of alleged liabilities.
You can also point to the types of unfair commercial practice
the CMA highlights: misleading actions or omissions, aggressive
practices, lack of professional diligence, and unfair practices
embedded in codes of conduct. POPLA and the BPA present POPLA as
an independent, judicially independent appeals body, with
decisions binding on the operator and final for the motorist,
and as a one-stage process that cannot be revisited if the
motorist disagrees.
In reality, in this case, POPLA received a detailed, legally
reasoned appeal (covering PoFA 9(2)(a) and “period of parking”,
the Single Code consideration period, the authority requirements
in the Code, and Equality Act issues), yet its decision and
subsequent complaint response refused to grapple with those
points. POPLA’s complaints process is limited to checking that
the assessor followed internal procedure and expressly refuses
to look at whether the decision is actually correct in law. This
creates an overall impression of independent, merits-based
scrutiny when, in practice, legal errors are not corrected even
when clearly particularised. That is at least arguable as a
breach of professional diligence in the DMCC sense: POPLA is an
ADR body whose decisions materially affect whether average
consumers, including disabled and otherwise vulnerable
motorists, pay alleged debts, yet it does not exercise the
standard of care and legal rigour consumers would reasonably
expect.
You can then explain that the BPA/POPLA/Single Code architecture
functions as an industry code of conduct that may itself promote
unfair practices. BPA membership and access to POPLA are tied to
adherence to that code. Within this framework operators often
misstate keeper liability under PoFA, dress up private charges
as if they were statutory penalties, and lean on POPLA’s
“independent” status to reassure motorists that any rejection is
final.
In reality, the system delivers a single-stage, operator-funded,
non-reviewable process that tends to uphold charges, especially
where complex legal or disability-related points are raised.
This can steer consumers towards paying debts they might
otherwise contest and can cause vulnerable motorists to abandon
Equality Act rights because they believe an independent body has
definitively ruled against them.
Finally, you should be realistic: a DMCC-anchored complaint
about POPLA and the BPA is about feeding evidence of systemic
unfairness into the CMA’s enforcement and policy work, not about
securing an individual right of appeal or getting a specific PCN
cancelled. There is a coherent legal hook to include POPLA in a
DMCC complaint, but the CMA is not an ombudsman. The aim is to
get the regulator to look at the sector as a whole and decide
whether the BPA/private parking/POPLA model amounts to unfair
commercial practices under the new regime.
To submit the complaint, you should first go to the CMA online
reporting page
HTML https://www.gov.uk/guidance/contact-the-cma
and select the
option “An issue in a sector of the UK economy”. This is because
the problem is not just with one business but with the way the
private parking sector operates as a whole, including BPA
operators and POPLA as the “independent” appeals layer.
In the next step, when you are asked “Tell us what happened”,
briefly describe the sector and the roles involved: that British
Parking Association Approved Operators issue private Parking
Charge Notices, that motorists are directed to POPLA as the only
appeals service, and that POPLA is funded by operators on a
per-appeal basis but marketed as free and independent for
consumers. Then summarise what happened in your own case: that
you appealed a MET Parking PCN to POPLA, raised detailed legal
arguments about non-compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012, the required “period of parking”, the new
Private Parking Single Code of Practice consideration period,
defects in the operator’s landowner authority, and Equality Act
issues linked to a disabled bay. Explain that POPLA’s decision
did not properly engage with those statutory and Code points and
that your subsequent formal complaint set out the legal errors
clearly. Then explain that POPLA’s complaint reply said it is a
one-stage process, that it cannot reconsider decisions even if
wrong in law, that complaints are limited to checking “process”
only, and that it will not correspond further. Add one short
sentence saying that you have uploaded a separate document
containing your full detailed legal and Code analysis.
Next, make clear why this is a DMCC and consumer protection
issue. Explain that the “product” in this sector is the alleged
private parking debt and the enforcement process surrounding it,
and that operators, the BPA and POPLA together form a code-based
appeals and enforcement system that directly influences whether
consumers decide to pay or dispute those alleged debts. Say that
POPLA is part of a “commercial practice” in DMCC terms because
it is promoted as an independent, impartial arbiter, it is
funded by the traders who benefit from upheld PCNs, and its
decisions are routinely used to push consumers towards paying
rather than defending claims in court. By refusing to correct
legal and Code errors once a decision is issued, by operating a
complaints process that only checks superficial procedure, and
by ignoring points about disability and reasonable adjustments,
POPLA arguably falls below the standard of professional
diligence expected of an appeals body whose decisions affect
consumers’ transactional decisions, especially for vulnerable
motorists.
You should then say that the overall presentation of POPLA and
the BPA scheme risks misleading the average consumer into
believing that there is a genuine, independent safeguard, when
in practice the system is structurally weighted in favour of
operators and errors cannot be corrected. This is why POPLA can
and should be included in a DMCC complaint: it is not a neutral
bystander, but part of the way private parking traders present,
process and enforce alleged liabilities.
End your “Tell us what happened” narrative by making clear that
you are not asking the CMA to overturn your individual POPLA
decision, but asking the CMA to look at the private parking
sector as a whole, including the BPA and POPLA, to decide
whether the structure and operation of this appeals model amount
to unfair commercial practices under the DMCC.
On the “Upload evidence” page, upload up to five documents that
best illustrate the problem: the POPLA decision, your detailed
formal complaint to POPLA, POPLA’s complaint reply, the Notice
to Keeper or PCN from MET Parking, and the operator’s landowner
authority or contract page relied on by POPLA. Make sure that
one of these uploaded files is your full detailed argument and
legal analysis, so you are not limited by the 3,500 character
box. You can redact personal data while leaving dates, locations
and wording intact.
On the next page, if you are willing, provide at least an email
address so the CMA can contact you for further information.
Finally, select the appropriate UK country, review the summary
page to ensure that you have clearly described this as a sector
problem involving private parking, the BPA and POPLA under the
DMCC, confirm that the attached files are correct, and submit
the report.
Here is a full narrative you can use as the uploaded file. You
can save it as a Word/PDF and upload it as “Detailed legal and
Code analysis” or similar. You can of course tweak names, dates
and PCN refs as needed:
--- Quote ---
> Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 –
complaint about private parking appeals (BPA / POPLA / Approved
Operators)
>
> 1. Overview
>
> This document provides a fuller explanation of why I believe
there are unfair commercial practices within the private parking
sector, and why POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals), the
British Parking Association (BPA) and BPA Approved Operators
should be treated together as part of a commercial practice
falling within the scope of the Digital Markets, Competition and
Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
>
> I am not asking the CMA to intervene in, or overturn, my
individual POPLA decision. I am asking the CMA to consider
whether the structure and operation of the BPA/POPLA/private
parking model amount to unfair commercial practices under the
DMCC, in particular in relation to misleading presentation,
professional diligence and code-of-conduct-based practices.
>
> My own case (MET Parking Services – McDonald’s Bow) is
provided as a worked example and case study.
>
> 2. The sector and the “product”
>
> In the private parking sector, the real “product” from the
consumer’s point of view is not a physical good but an alleged
parking liability and the associated enforcement process.
>
> The typical chain is:
>
> • A BPA Approved Operator issues a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
and seeks payment of an alleged contractual charge.
> • The operator uses DVLA keeper data and ANPR or manual images
to pursue the alleged debt.
> • The operator’s paperwork and BPA membership direct motorists
to POPLA as the only independent appeals service.
> • POPLA is funded by operators on a per-appeal basis, but
marketed as a free, independent appeals service for motorists.
> • POPLA’s decision is binding on the operator and is routinely
treated, in practice, as the decisive factor in whether a
motorist pays the alleged debt or not.
>
> Under the DMCC, a “product” includes services and also payment
demands in settlement of actual or purported liabilities. A
“commercial practice” covers not only pre-sale promotion but
also complaints handling, after-sales conduct and
debt-collection-related practices. It is expressly recognised
that several traders in the same chain (including intermediaries
and platforms) can all fall within scope, and that decisions
which influence whether a consumer pays a debt count as
affecting “transactional decisions”.
>
> On that basis:
>
> • The alleged private parking liability and its enforcement
are a “product”.
> • The conduct of operators, the BPA and POPLA in relation to
that product together amount to a chain of “commercial
practices” that can fall under the DMCC regime.
> • POPLA is not a neutral bystander: it is part of the
mechanism by which traders present, process and enforce alleged
liabilities, and its decisions directly affect whether consumers
decide to pay.
>
> 3. How POPLA and the BPA present the service
>
> The BPA promotes POPLA as the independent appeals service for
BPA Approved Operators. POPLA’s own materials describe it as an
independent appeals service, emphasising that:
>
> • It is “judicially independent”.
> • It is free to motorists.
> • It is funded by operators on a per-appeal basis.
> • Its decisions are final and cannot be appealed or reviewed;
POPLA is a one-stage process.
>
> In operator correspondence and on BPA/POPLA websites,
motorists are reassured that there is an independent
tribunal-like stage where their arguments will be fairly
considered. In practice, POPLA decisions are routinely used by
operators to justify continuing demands and threats of county
court proceedings, and by motorists as a key factor in deciding
whether to pay.
>
> 4. My case as a worked example
>
> The specific case I rely on to illustrate these concerns is:
>
> [indent]• Operator: MET Parking Services.
> • Site: McDonald’s Bow.
> • PCN: AB22929772.
> • POPLA appeal: 3862515108.
> • Decision date: November 2025.
>
> As registered Keeper, I appealed the MET PCN to POPLA. In my
appeal I raised, among other things, the following issues:
>
> (a) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(a) – “period of parking”
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) relied on a single manually taken
photograph of the vehicle, with one timestamp. It did not
specify any period of parking; instead it gave one time and date
only. I argued that:
>
> • PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the period of parking to
which the notice relates”.
> • A single instant in time is not a period.
> • A County Court appeal judgment, Brennan v Premier Parking
Solutions, supports the view that there must be at least a
short, evidenced period of parking; a single snapshot is
insufficient.
>
> I provided this authority as persuasive support for the
correct interpretation of PoFA in a parking context.
>
> (b) Consideration period under the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice
>
> I pointed out that the new Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (Single Code) requires a consideration period on
arrival (for example to find a space, read the signs and decide
whether to stay) before terms can bind a driver. MET provided no
timed observation log or entry/exit timings to show any period
of parking beyond one snapshot.
>
> I argued that you cannot safely infer an immediate breach from
a single photograph without recognising the consideration period
that the Code requires.
>
> (c) Standing and landowner authority
>
> I analysed MET’s “Letter of Authority” and the single page of
contract documentation they supplied. I explained how these
documents failed to meet the specific mandatory elements of
operator authority set out in the Code (for example site
boundary, nature of terms, tariff, method of enforcement and who
is responsible for what).
>
> My position was that the operator had not produced
contemporaneous, site-specific written authority that met the
Code’s detailed requirements and therefore had not shown that it
had standing to issue and enforce PCNs at that site.
>
> (d) Equality Act and disabled-bay context
>
> I explained the disabled-bay context and raised Equality Act
and reasonable-adjustment issues. I argued that this was
intrinsic to the alleged contravention and should not be treated
as an optional or “new” issue. In a disabled-bay case, it is
particularly important to consider how the operator and appeals
service treat disabled motorists and whether reasonable
adjustments have been made.[/indent]
>
> 5. POPLA’s decision and complaint response
>
> POPLA rejected my appeal. The written decision:
>
> • Referred to the evidence in general terms, but did not
meaningfully engage with the PoFA 9(2)(a) point about “period of
parking”.
> • Did not address the Brennan appeal judgment at all.
> • Did not grapple with the Single Code consideration period
before contract formation.
> • Accepted the operator’s authority on the basis of a generic
“signed letter + signs on site” approach, without addressing the
specific Code requirements I had identified.
> • Did not substantively deal with the Equality Act and
disabled-bay issues.
>
> I then submitted a detailed formal complaint to POPLA, setting
out the legal and Code errors clearly and referencing the
specific statutory provisions and Code clauses. I requested that
POPLA:
>
> • Recognise that a single snapshot is not a PoFA-compliant
“period of parking”.
> • Recognise that, without a timed observation period, an
immediate breach finding is unsafe in light of the Single Code’s
consideration period.
> • Apply the Code’s own detailed requirements on operator
authority.
> • Take proper account of Equality Act obligations and the
position of disabled motorists.
>
> POPLA’s complaint reply (from its Complaints handler) stated:
>
> • POPLA is a one-stage process.
> • POPLA cannot reconsider decisions even if a motorist
disagrees with them.
> • The complaint function is limited to checking whether the
assessor followed internal process.
> • The assessor was said, in general terms, to have considered
all grounds of appeal.
> • POPLA would not correspond further on the matter.
>
> The reply did not engage with any of the legal or Code-based
points raised in the complaint. It expressly refused to consider
whether the decision was right or wrong in law.
>
> 6. Why I believe this is an unfair commercial practice
>
> In my view, the BPA/POPLA/private parking model raises several
DMCC concerns.
>
> (a) Misleading overall impression
>
> Consumers are told that POPLA is independent and judicially
independent, and that there is an appeal stage before a neutral
adjudicator. In practice:
>
> • POPLA is operator-funded on a per-case basis.
> • POPLA’s decisions cannot be corrected even where clear legal
or Code errors are identified.
> • The complaint process is deliberately limited to a
superficial process check, not a review of correctness.
>
> This creates a misleading overall impression that there is a
genuine, robust safeguard, when in reality errors are not
remedied.
>
> (b) Lack of professional diligence
>
> An ADR body whose decisions are routinely relied upon to
decide whether alleged debts are paid should, in my view, be
expected to:
>
> • Engage properly with statutory wording and relevant case
law.
> • Apply its own Code of Practice consistently and
transparently.
> • Pay particular attention to the position of disabled and
otherwise vulnerable consumers.
>
> In my case, and in others I am aware of, POPLA has failed to
meet those basic standards. It has ignored clear PoFA wording,
disregarded persuasive appellate authority on the same statutory
provision, failed to apply its own Code requirements on
consideration periods and operator authority, and sidelined
Equality Act issues.
>
> This appears inconsistent with the standard of professional
diligence the DMCC expects from a trader in its field.
>
> (c) Code of conduct and promotion of unfair practices
>
> BPA membership, the Approved Operator Scheme and access to
POPLA are built around a code of practice (now the Single Code).
Within this framework:
>
> • Operators frequently misstate the legal position on keeper
liability.
> • Operators often present private contractual charges as if
they were statutory penalties or fines.
> • References to POPLA are used to reassure motorists that any
rejection is final and independent, when in fact there is no
possibility of correcting errors and no external oversight of
POPLA’s legal reasoning.
>
> In my view, this code-based structure promotes or embeds
unfair practices, because it creates a systemic, operator-funded
appeals mechanism that tends to uphold charges and does not
provide the level of independent scrutiny and correction that
consumers are led to expect.
>
> 7. Effect on consumers and vulnerable motorists
>
> The practices described above are likely to cause the average
consumer to take transactional decisions they would not
otherwise take, specifically:
>
> • Paying alleged parking debts they might otherwise challenge
or defend in court.
> • Accepting that they have no realistic recourse if POPLA has
misunderstood the law or the Code.
>
> For disabled and otherwise vulnerable motorists, the harm is
greater. Where POPLA refuses to grapple with Equality Act
arguments or treats them as “new” and out of scope, disabled
motorists may wrongly conclude that their rights have been
definitively rejected by an independent body and give up.
>
> 8. What I am asking the CMA to do
>
> I am not seeking individual redress or a reopening of my
appeal. Rather, I invite the CMA to:
>
> • Treat my case and the attached documents (PCN, NtK, operator
evidence, POPLA decision, my appeal, my formal complaint and
POPLA’s complaint response) as a case study illustrating how the
BPA/POPLA/private parking model operates in practice.
> • Consider whether the combination of operator behaviour, BPA
code arrangements and POPLA’s structure and practice amount to
unfair commercial practices under the DMCC, particularly
regarding misleading presentation, lack of professional
diligence and the promotion of unfair practices through a code
of conduct.
>
> I would be happy to provide further examples of similar
patterns and additional evidence if required.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page