DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94587--------------------------------------------------
Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: BrahmaCool Date: October 18, 2025, 5:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Got this NTK sent by Group Nexus -
HTML https://ibb.co/mCSc36Sg
Some Images of the entrance and then parts of the car park -
don't think signage is that obvious
HTML https://ibb.co/0j90HVJ9
HTML https://ibb.co/v4Rv71Cm
HTML https://ibb.co/RpwMxkZ3
HTML https://ibb.co/GvSD0S2P
HTML https://ibb.co/rKgxPvhf
I appealed to Group Nexus as Keeper but appeal was refused with
following text -
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence relating to your Parking
Charge.
The Charge was issued and the signage is displayed in compliance
with The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice and all
relevant laws and regulations.
Clear signs at the entrance of this site and throughout inform
drivers of the 3 hours maximum stay (0500-0000) 20 minutes
maximum stay (0000-0500) , and it is not possible to access any
part of the premises without passing multiple signs. Your
representations are not considered a mitigating circumstance for
appeal.
We confirm the Charge was issued under Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As full driver details have not
been provided, we are holding the registered keeper of the
vehicle liable.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have
been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the Charge at the current rate
of £60 for a further 14 days from the date of this
correspondence. If no payment is received within this period,
and no further appeal to POPLA is made, the Charge will escalate
and further costs may be added. Should you appeal to POPLA, and
your appeal is rejected for any reason, you will also lose your
right to pay at the reduced rate.
Please find below the payment options: ...
Do I have any chance at POPLA ? what points do I raise please?
#Post#: 94618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: Oldstoat Date: October 18, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking at google maps the sign you would have seen is on a
roundabout, so how can that be classed as adequate, as it could
be blocked by a moving vehicle and you would be looking at
vehicles coming from your right. Secondly it does not state any
penalty for exceeding the three hour max stay. Appeal points
for POPLA should include inadequacy and positioning of signage.
Others will assist with POFA compliance
#Post#: 94636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: b789 Date: October 18, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You appeal to POPLA as the Keeper only and your points of appeal
are:
1. No Keeper liability as their Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not
fully compliant with PoFA.
2. Driver not identified.
3. Failure of the BPA CoP
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024.pdf<br
/>because there is no Entrance sign informing drivers that they
are entering private land and that they should seek out tens and
conditions signs inside the car park.
4. Insufficient or no terms signs visible within the car park.
5. No evidence of standing to operate or issue PCNs at this
location.
Because a separate company now exists called “GroupNexus Ltd”,
an NtK that is front-branded “GroupNexus”, directs payment to a
“groupnexus.co.uk” site, and only buries “CP Plus Ltd t/a
GroupNexus” in the footer creates ambiguity as to the
contracting party. When two distinct legal persons could
plausibly be the creditor (CP Plus Ltd vs GroupNexus Ltd), the
NtK fails to “identify the creditor” with certainty. That is a
clean PoFA 9(2)(h) point.
If they want keeper liability, they must make it crystal-clear
on the face of the NtK who the creditor is (name + number), not
leave the recipient to infer it from a trading-as
line—especially where a different company with the same trading
style exists.
#Post#: 102829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: BrahmaCool Date: December 17, 2025, 5:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA has refused my appeal !! What do I do next pls?
POPLA Response =>
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park displayed on the signs located within the car park.
Therefore, the driver is responsible for seeking out these
signs, reviewing the displayed terms and conditions and
complying with these. The signs on this site confirm free
parking is permitted for a maximum stay of three hours and
failure to comply will result in the issue of a £100 PCN. The
operator has provided photographic evidence the vehicle remained
on site for three hours and 41 minutes. The Private Parking
Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its
parking operators need to comply with. 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 and applies to all PCNs issued after this date. The
new coded supersedes all previous versions of the BPA code of
practice. The appellant has not admitted to being the driver. I
will therefore be considering their responsibility as keeper of
the vehicle. In order for the keeper to be liable for the
parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict
requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. Having reviewed the
evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between
the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not
provided a current name and address for service for the driver.
The notice also identifies the creditor. Further, on reviewing
the Notice to Keeper provided by both parties, I am satisfied
this complies with the relevant provisions and therefore, I am
satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability.
Section 18.2 of the BPA code of practice no longer applies. It
is worth noting that section 18.2 has not applied to signage
since version 7 2018 of the BPA code of practice. Section 3.1.1
of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an
entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the
site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to
terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.2 of the Code
contains the principles the entrance sign must display,
including whether public parking is available and if a payment
is required. Its design must also comply with the standard
format as described in Annex A. The entrance sign must take into
account the speed of vehicles approaching the car park. Section
3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements
for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be
placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity
to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms
and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and
contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. The operator has
provided multiple images of the entrance sign and also signage
within the car park and after reviewing these, I am satisfied
that there are plenty of signs located within the car park and
at the entrance and that these signs meet the requirements of
the Single Code of Practice. I recognise the appellant has
provided two photographs however these images are not time or
date stamped. As such, I am unable to determine when these were
taken. As such, I am not satisfied these two images are
sufficient to cast doubt on the evidence provided by the
operator. Section 7 of the BPA code of practice is no longer
applicable. Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice states
that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a
landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a
parking charge can be issued. There is no requirement in the
Single Code of Practice for operators to provide a copy of this
contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.
The operator has confirmed it has the landowner’s authority to
issue PCNs and, as it has signage and ANPR cameras in place
which would not be possible without the landowner’s permission.
As the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate
otherwise, I am satisfied that the operator has the appropriate
authority on this site. Section 21 of the BPA code of practice
is no longer applicable. ANPR cameras are used to capture
vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a
vehicle has remained in the car park. This ANPR data captured is
then compared with the online transaction record, and if a
vehicle exceeds the maximum stay, a PCN is issued. As NAPR
operated car parks are fully automated, a parking operator is
not required to provide evidence of a vehicle parked as the ANPR
evidence proves the vehicle exceeded the maximum stay allowed.
POPLA accept evidence from both parties in good faith unless the
opposite is proven. The burden of proof begins with the operator
to show it issued the PCN correctly. If they do that by
providing ANPR images that support its version of events, the
burden of proof then passes to the appellant. As I accept there
is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any
evidence that suggests the ANOR camera are inaccurate. However,
as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate
otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is
accurate. Section 13 of the BPA code of practice no longer
applies. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a
parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the
parking period. Annex B states the grace period is 10 minutes.
In this case, the vehicle remained on site for an additional 41
minutes therefore, both the grace period and maximum stay have
been exceeded. The appellant has told us in their response that
the charge is disproportionate and not commercially justified.
This matter was considered at length by the Supreme Court in the
case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the
Court recognised that parking charges have all the
characteristics of a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable
because there were legitimate interests in the charging of
overstaying motorists. This “legitimate interests” approach
moved away from a loss-based analysis of parking charges: “In
our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85
charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye
was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying
motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which
extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence is not
penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing the
conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by the
mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.” The Court
did however make it clear that the parking charge must be
proportionate: “None of this means that ParkingEye could charge
overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which
would be out of all proportion to its interest or that of the
landowner for whom it is providing the service.” It concluded
that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it
attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently
displayed in large lettering on the signage. While the specific
facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the
motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie
behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles
into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a
genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct
loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge
amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the signage. On this,
I conclude the charge is appropriately prominent and in the
region of £85 and is therefore allowable. The appellant states
there is no proof of planning permission for signage and ANPR
installations. POPLA is an appeals service only. Our remit
extends solely to determining if the PCN has been issued
correctly based on the evidence provided. It is not within
POPLAs scope to comment on how a parking operator chooses to
manage land it is responsible for. Therefore, should the
appellant wish to pursue a dispute regarding this matter, they
will need to contact the relevant authorities. On reviewing the
operator’s evidence, the appellant expands on their initial
grounds of appeal. As I have considered these above, I will not
comment further. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has
issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the
contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not
been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN
correctly, and the appeal is refused.
#Post#: 102840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: b789 Date: December 17, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What exactly did you out in as your POPLA appeal? You never
showed us. Also, did you not receive the operators evidence pack
that also gave you a further 7 days to respond?
Too late now but the POPLA decision is not binding on you and I
cannot be arsed to read the wall of waffle from this pompous
moron of a POPLA assessor.
You DO NOT pay. You can safely ignore all the upcoming useless
debt recovery letters. Debt collectors 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.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 102842--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: b789 Date: December 17, 2025, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This decision reads less like legal reasoning and more like an
exercise in box-ticking by someone who has memorised buzzwords
without understanding the law that underpins them. The
assessor’s analysis is fundamentally flawed, internally
inconsistent, and demonstrates a worrying lack of comprehension
of both Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and
basic principles of contract formation.
The opening premise that “the driver is responsible for seeking
out the signs” immediately signals the problem. That is not the
legal test. The burden is on the operator to prove that the
terms were adequately brought to the driver’s attention such
that a contract could be formed. Treating signage as something a
motorist must actively hunt for is a complete inversion of
contract law and serves only to excuse inadequate or poorly
positioned signs. The assessor later gestures vaguely toward
signage standards but never applies them in any meaningful way.
The discussion of the Single Code of Practice is equally
muddled. Large portions of the reasoning consist of announcing
that various sections of the BPA Code “no longer apply”, as if
that alone resolves anything. Compliance with an industry code
does not replace the need to prove contractual incorporation,
nor does it relieve the operator of evidential burdens. The
assessor appears to believe that citing the new Code is a
substitute for analysis.
Keeper liability is where the decision collapses entirely. The
assessor states that there “looks to be a contract” and that
because the keeper did not name the driver, PoFA has been met.
That is legally illiterate. Keeper liability does not arise
because something “looks like” a contract, nor because a keeper
declined to identify the driver. It arises only if every
statutory condition in Schedule 4 is strictly complied with. The
assessor does not identify those conditions, does not analyse
them, and instead relies on impression and assumption. This is
not how statute works.
Signage is dealt with in the same superficial manner. The
conclusion that there are “plenty of signs” is meaningless. The
relevant question is whether the signs were prominent, legible,
and positioned at the correct decision points so that a driver
would inevitably see and understand the terms before parking and
leaving the vehicle. Operator photographs taken at close range,
in good lighting, at an unknown time, prove nothing about the
driver’s experience on the day. The assessor nonetheless accepts
them uncritically.
By contrast, the appellant’s photographs are dismissed outright
because they are not timestamped. There is no rule of evidence
that requires photographs to carry embedded metadata to be
admissible or credible. This is a standard invented by the
assessor to reject inconvenient evidence. No equivalent
scepticism is applied to the operator’s images.
Landowner authority is treated with breathtaking laziness. The
assessor accepts that authority exists because the operator says
so, and because signage and ANPR equipment are present. That is
circular reasoning. The very purpose of requiring written
landowner authority is to prevent enforcement without
permission. The idea that enforcement infrastructure could not
exist without authority is demonstrably false and legally
irrelevant.
ANPR evidence is treated as conclusive proof of parking, despite
the fact that ANPR measures entry and exit, not parking time.
The assessor simply assumes that time on site equals time
parked, and then shifts the burden onto the appellant to
disprove the accuracy of the system. This again reverses the
burden of proof. The operator must prove reliability,
calibration, and that the alleged contractual term relates to
the period measured. None of this is examined.
Grace periods are similarly mishandled. The assessor
mechanically subtracts ten minutes from the ANPR duration
without ever establishing when parking began or ended. The
analysis collapses different concepts into a single time
calculation and calls it compliance. It is not.
The reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is careless and misleading.
The assessor describes a £100 charge as being “in the region of
£85” in order to squeeze the case into Beavis, ignoring that the
Supreme Court stressed the importance of clear, prominent
signage and proportionality in context. None of that analysis is
actually performed. The case is cited as a talisman, not applied
as authority.
Taken as a whole, this decision is not reasoned adjudication. It
is a collection of assumptions, inferences, and boilerplate
phrases deployed to justify a foregone conclusion. It suggests
an assessor who lacks a working understanding of PoFA, contract
law, evidential standards, and the limits of ANPR technology.
Frankly, it reads as though it was written by someone
intellectually malnourished and wholly unsuited to
quasi-judicial decision-making. A career change would be kinder
to both the assessor and the appellants subjected to this level
of incompetence.
Send the following complaint by email to POPLA:
[quote]Subject: Formal complaint regarding assessor incompetence
and defective reasoning
Dear POPLA Complaints Team,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint about the reasoning and
competence of the assessor who determined my recent appeal.
The decision demonstrates serious and repeated misunderstandings
of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, basic
principles of contract formation, and the evidential burdens
that apply in civil disputes. Keeper liability was treated as a
matter of impression rather than statutory compliance, signage
was accepted on assertion rather than analysis, and ANPR
entry/exit timestamps were wrongly equated with a proven period
of parking.
The assessor dismissed appellant evidence on invented grounds,
while accepting operator assertions and inferences without
proof. Concepts such as landowner authority, grace periods, and
the application of ParkingEye v Beavis were handled
superficially and, in several respects, incorrectly. The phrase
“there looks to be a contract” is particularly alarming in a
decision that purports to assess legal liability.
This is not a disagreement over outcome; it is a complaint about
the quality and integrity of the decision-making process. An
assessor who reasons in this way should not be determining
appeals that hinge on statutory interpretation and contractual
analysis.
I ask that this decision be formally reviewed, that the
assessor’s reasoning be examined as a training issue, and that
POPLA confirm what steps will be taken to ensure assessors
receive proper instruction in PoFA, contract law, and evidential
standards before being permitted to determine further appeals.
I look forward to your substantive response.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Reference / PCN number][/quote]
#Post#: 102860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: BrahmaCool Date: December 17, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much for your detailed reponse. I have complained
to POPLA. I will also reach out to Sports Direct as I did
substantial shopping that day and hopefully they will be able to
intervene. Apologies I did not post the pack operator sent to
POPLA here, I just asked chatgpt to draft a response :( The pack
was a standard set of images
#Post#: 104629--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: BrahmaCool Date: January 5, 2026, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update, I have received email from POPLA that the
compliant has been excalated, not sure if they will re-evaluate
my case but will let you know.
#Post#: 104632--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: DWMB2 Date: January 5, 2026, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=BrahmaCool link=topic=8448.msg104629#msg104629
date=1767624361]
not sure if they will re-evaluate my case but will let you know.
[/quote]
They almost certainly will not, as they consider POPLA to be a
one-stage process with no 'appeal' - if you are very lucky they
might say that the adjudicator was mistaken, but they won't
overturn the appeal decision.
#Post#: 107437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Group Nexus - Crayford Tower Retail Park PCN
By: BrahmaCool Date: January 26, 2026, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got the following reponse from POPLA
------------------------------------
Thank you for your email, which was passed to me by the POPLA
team, as I am responsible for responding to complaints.
I note from your correspondence that you are unhappy with the
decision reached by the assessor in your appeal against CP Plus.
POPLA is an impartial and independent appeals service, and we do
not act either for the parking operator or the appellant. It is
important to explain that POPLA is a one-stage process and we
would not change a decision because either party disputes the
assessor’s decision. However, we may consider an appeal if there
has been a procedural error, for example – if we failed to allow
a motorist to comment on a parking operator’s evidence pack.
My role as a complaints handler is not to determine if the
decision is correct, but to establish if the assessor has failed
to follow the correct POPLA process and identify whether a
procedural error has occurred.
I have summarised your complaint below and will respond to each
point individually.
You explain the decision demonstrates serious and repeated
misunderstandings of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. You explain Keeper liability was treated as a matter
of impression rather than statutory compliance.
I have reviewed the decision following your complaint and the
assessor explained the following:
“The appellant has not admitted to being the driver. I will
therefore be considering their responsibility as keeper of the
vehicle.
In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the
operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of
POFA. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks
to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator,
and the appellant has not provided a current name and address
for service for the driver. The notice also identifies the
creditor. Further, on reviewing the Notice to Keeper provided by
both parties, I am satisfied this complies with the relevant
provisions and therefore, I am satisfied that the operator has
met POFA to transfer liability.”
The assessor has explained they were satisfied the Notice to
Keeper complied with the requirements of the Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Upon review of the Notice to Keeper, I
am of agreement with the assessor.
You advise the signage was accepted on assertion rather than
analysis and the ANPR entry and exit timestamps were wrongly
equated with a proven period of parking.
Within its evidence file, the operator provided the following
images of the signage on site:
A sign with text and images on it
AI-generated content may be incorrect.A aerial view of a parking
lot
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
A sign on the grass
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
I refer to the assessor’s rationale, which states:
“The operator has provided multiple images of the entrance sign
and also signage within the car park and after reviewing these,
I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the
car park and at the entrance and that these signs meet the
requirements of the Single Code of Practice.”
The driver of the vehicle does not need to have read the terms
and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is only the
requirement that the driver is given the opportunity to read and
understand the terms and conditions of the contract before
accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the
signs, and ensure they understand them, before agreeing to the
contract and parking.
I am inclined to agree with the assessor’s determination, the
operator provided evidence of the signs which clearly outline
parking is permitted for up to 3 hours.
The parking operator provided images taken from the ANPR
cameras, which I have shown below:
A screenshot of a car
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
The parking operator also provided a vehicle movement search:
A screenshot of a computer
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
The assessor explained within their rationale:
“Section 21 of the BPA code of practice is no longer applicable.
ANPR cameras are used to capture vehicles entering and exiting
the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car
park. This ANPR data captured is then compared with the online
transaction record, and if a vehicle exceeds the maximum stay, a
PCN is issued.
As NAPR operated car parks are fully automated, a parking
operator is not required to provide evidence of a vehicle parked
as the ANPR evidence proves the vehicle exceeded the maximum
stay allowed.
POPLA accept evidence from both parties in good faith unless the
opposite is proven.
The burden of proof begins with the operator to show it issued
the PCN correctly. If they do that by providing ANPR images that
support its version of events, the burden of proof then passes
to the appellant.
As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am
happy to accept any evidence that suggests the ANOR camera are
inaccurate. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence
to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the
technology is accurate.”
The evidence provided demonstrates that the vehicle entered at
10:18:51 and exited the car park at 14:00:47, totaling a stay of
3 hours and 41 minutes. ANPR cameras are primarily used to
capture vehicles' entry and exit times and to calculate the time
a vehicle has remained in the car park. As such, the parking
operator would not be able to provide evidence of the vehicle
parked in a bay. You did not provide any evidence to refute the
ANPR images, therefore I agree with the assessor’s rationale.
You explain the assessor dismissed your evidence on invented
grounds, whilst accepting the operators assertion and inferences
without proof.
The assessor explained the following:
“I recognise the appellant has provided two photographs however
these images are not time or date stamped. As such, I am unable
to determine when these were taken. As such, I am not satisfied
these two images are sufficient to cast doubt on the evidence
provided by the operator.”
I cannot agree that the assessor has dismissed your evidence.
The assessor refers to the evidence but did not consider the
images cast doubt on the evidence of the signage provided by the
parking operator.
You advise that concepts of landowner authority, grace periods,
and the application of ParkingEye v Beavis were handled
superficially and incorrectly.
Regarding landowner authority, the assessor stated:
“Section 7 of the BPA code of practice is no longer applicable.
Section 14.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that where
controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner,
written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge
can be issued.
There is no requirement in the Single Code of Practice for
operators to provide a copy of this contract as it may contain
commercially sensitive information.
The operator has confirmed it has the landowner’s authority to
issue PCNs and, as it has signage and ANPR cameras in place
which would not be possible without the landowner’s permission.
As the appellant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate
otherwise, I am satisfied that the operator has the appropriate
authority on this site.”
The assessor was satisfied the parking operator provided
sufficient evidence to demonstrate they have the appropriate
authority to issue parking charges. You did not provide any
evidence to cast doubt on the evidence provided by the parking
operator. I agree with the assessor's reasoning.
Relating to grace periods, the assessor addressed this ground of
appeal and explained section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice
requires parking operators to allow a 10-minute grace period in
addition to the parking period. In this case, the vehicle was
captured on site for 41 additional minutes, which exceeds the
grace period and maximum stay. I agree with the assessor’s
determination.
In relation to the assessor’s response regarding ParkingEye vs
Beavis.
The appellant has told us in their response that the charge is
disproportionate and not commercially justified. This matter was
considered at length by the Supreme Court in the case of
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In this case, the Court
recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of
a penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were
legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists.
This “legitimate interests” approach moved away from a
loss-based analysis of parking charges:
“In our opinion, while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the
£85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although
ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of
overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging
them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss… deterrence
is not penal if there is a legitimate interest in influencing
the conduct of the contracting party which is not satisfied by
the mere right to recover damages for breach of contract.”
The Court did however make it clear that the parking charge must
be proportionate:
“None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers
whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out
of all proportion to its interest or that of the landowner for
whom it is providing the service.”
It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was
proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the
charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the
signage. While the specific facts of the case concerned a
free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider
the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same.
Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider
whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it
reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to
consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as
the signage. On this, I conclude the charge is appropriately
prominent and in the region of £85 and is therefore allowable.
The assessor has addressed the ground of appeal and explained in
detail regarding the ParkingEye vs Beavis case. The assessor has
considered the amount of the parking charge is prominent and in
the region of £85.
I understand your concerns about how decisions are made by
POPLA. Our FAQ’s explain the following:
A white background with black text
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
On review of the decision made, I am satisfied that the assessor
has addressed all grounds and evidence appropriately, and I
consider the outcome reached is correct. As POPLA is a one-stage
process, there is no opportunity for you to appeal the decision.
You are still free to dispute your parking charge through other
channels, such as the courts, if you wish to do so. 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).
To conclude, I am sorry that you have not had a positive
experience when using our service. POPLA’s involvement with your
case has now ended, and my response closes our complaints
process. I must advise there will be no further review of your
complaint and any further correspondence on the matter will not
be responded to.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page