DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 103635--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 22, 2025, 6:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Initial Parking has sent their evidence with pictures etc and at
the bottom, they have put this comment.
"Please be advised, the car park in question is Private Land. As
stated on our, very large, BPA
approvedsigns 'These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders’.
You can pay for parking time via pay
and displaymachine, via phone or via app. Therefore, as no
parking time was paid, the charge
remains valid andpayment is due.
We attach our Parking Enforcement documentation signed by both
the landowner and ourselves. All
signs on site are very large, BPA compliant and advise the
motorist that if they do not wish to remain
on site they must leave within 10 minutes of entry. We follow
the BPA practice allowing the
appropriate grace period on site."
Is there any comment I should put? I have 7 days to respond.
#Post#: 103659--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: December 23, 2025, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have they rebutted or answered all the points raised in the
appeal?
Can you please show us their "evidence" especially any photos of
the signs at the bay where the driver parked. Also, we need to
see their evidence of landowner authority.
Use something like DropBox or Google Drive to show us. Just make
sure that it is set to "public".
#Post#: 103721--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 23, 2025, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Have they rebutted or answered all the points raised in the
appeal?
>
> Can you please show us their "evidence" especially any photos
of the signs at the bay where the driver parked. Also, we need
to see their evidence of landowner authority.
>
> Use something like DropBox or Google Drive to show us. Just
make sure that it is set to "public".
>
--- End Quote ---
They have included pictures but regarding the duration nothing
was mentioned. Please find attached link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tCgPzyuhh4PWg69vzYRMLfnGEjBxUSGs/view
#Post#: 103754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: b789
Date: December 24, 2025, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can copy and paste the following as your response to the
operators evidence:
--- Quote ---
> The operator has failed to rebut the substantive points raised
in the original appeal and has not discharged the burden of
proof required to establish keeper liability, standing to
operate, or compliance with the applicable Codes of Practice.
The evidence provided does not cure the defects identified in
the appeal and, in several respects, reinforces them.
>
> Keeper liability under PoFA has not been established. The
original appeal challenged PoFA compliance, including the
absence of a properly specified period of parking and the status
of the land as relevant land. The operator’s evidence does not
meaningfully address these challenges.
>
> The Notice to Keeper relies solely on ANPR entry and exit
timestamps and labels the difference between those timestamps as
a parking duration. The operator does not explain how this
constitutes a “period of parking” as required by PoFA Schedule 4
paragraph 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps show only when a vehicle
passed cameras at the site boundary. They do not identify when
the vehicle was stationary, how long it was actually parked, or
how much of the time was spent entering, manoeuvring,
considering the terms, assisting a disabled occupant, or
exiting. The operator has not provided any evidence of an actual
period of parking. This point was raised in the original appeal
and has not been rebutted. In the absence of a properly
specified period of parking, PoFA compliance is not established
and keeper liability cannot arise.
>
> Further, the operator has not proved that the land is
“relevant land” for the purposes of PoFA Schedule 4. Under
paragraph 3(1)(b), land is not relevant land if it is a parking
place provided or controlled by a traffic authority. Paragraph
3(2)(f) expressly includes a parish or community council within
the definition of a traffic authority. This location is a
community facility operated for public/community use. The
operator has produced no reliable evidence identifying the true
landowner or controller of the parking land and no evidence
excluding parish or community council provision or control. In
the absence of strict proof that the parking place is not
provided or controlled by a traffic authority, PoFA keeper
liability cannot be assumed or applied.
>
> Even if PoFA were capable of applying, the operator has failed
to demonstrate the necessary standing to operate and enforce
parking charges. The operator relies on a single “Contract for
Parking Enforcement”, a blurred Google satellite/Street View
style plan, and a separate signage key as its entire evidence of
landowner authority. This does not satisfy the mandatory
requirements of section 14.1 of the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice, which is in force in respect of landowner
relationships. In other words, the operator has not shown that
it obtained the written confirmation required by the operative
Code before issuing parking charges.
>
> Section 14.1(a) requires written confirmation of the identity
of the landowner. The agreement merely names “Y Ganolfan
Community Centre” and does not properly identify the landowner
as a legal entity, does not provide a registered address, and
does not evidence that the signatory has authority to bind the
landowner.
>
> Section 14.1(b) requires a boundary map of the land to be
managed. What the operator provides is not a boundary map. It is
a blurred aerial image with coloured dots and a separate key.
There is no defined boundary line, no scale, no clear
orientation, and no reliable way to determine what land is
actually controlled. The key contains symbols and sign types
that are not all identifiable on the plan, making correlation
impossible. This is a fundamental failure, particularly where
ANPR is used and the precise boundary of controlled land is
critical.
>
> Section 14.1(c) requires written confirmation of any byelaws
that may apply. The operator’s documents are silent on byelaws.
This omission is material, because where byelaws apply they can
take precedence and may prohibit the issuing of parking charges
unless properly addressed.
>
> Section 14.1(d) requires written confirmation of the
permission granted to the operator and the duration of that
permission. The agreement contains no start date, end date,
duration, renewal term, or termination provisions. Signatures
dated on different dates in 2023 do not establish continuing
authority at the material time without a stated duration. POPLA
cannot assume indefinite permission where the Code requires it
to be stated.
>
> Section 14.1(e) requires written confirmation of the parking
terms and conditions to be applied, including tariffs, free
parking periods, and exemptions. The agreement does not set out
the parking terms and conditions. It merely states the parking
charge amounts and includes brief restrictions such as “No
concessions for Blue Badge Holders”. It does not confirm
tariffs, free periods, payment windows, exemptions, or the
contractual terms allegedly offered to motorists. This is
precisely the information the Code requires and it is absent.
>
> Section 14.1(f) is only partially addressed, with a vague
reference to “ANPR linked with P&D Machines” and no clear
confirmation of the means by which parking charges are issued.
Sections 14.1(g) to (j) are not addressed at all. There is no
allocation of responsibility for obtaining relevant consents, no
proper statement of obligations under which the operator is
working in compliance with the Code and ATA membership, no
notification of documentation to be supplied to authorised
bodies on request, and no confirmation of the operator’s
approach to handling appeals. Those matters are explicitly
required by section 14.1 before a parking charge can be issued.
>
> Accordingly, on the operator’s own evidence, the mandatory
landowner relationship requirements in PPSCoP section 14.1 have
not been met. The operator has failed to prove standing to issue
or enforce parking charges.
>
> The operator has also failed to rebut the signage challenges
raised in the original appeal. Signage is assessed against the
British Parking Association Code of Practice v9, which was the
applicable signage Code at the material time.
>
> At the entrance, the operator relies on a single pole-mounted
sign of typical overall dimensions, split into two unequal
bilingual sections with the English section being smaller. This
design compresses the English content into dense, multi-line
text. Appendix B of BPA CoP v9 requires entrance signage to be
readable on approach and sets minimum capital letter heights for
primary (“Group 1”) entrance text by reference to approach
speed. The operator’s own photograph shows no English headline
text displayed in capitals anywhere close to the scale
contemplated by the BPA guidance for a turn-in from a main road.
The operator has not rebutted the keeper’s challenge that the
English text is not readable on entry. Instead it relies on
assertion (“very large signs”), which does not address
legibility, prominence, or letter height.
>
> At the disabled bay, the failure is more serious and remains
unrebutted. The original appeal stated that there are no terms
and conditions signs visible from within the disabled bay. The
operator has not produced any photograph taken from the disabled
bay or from a driver’s eye-level position within that bay. The
only sign adjacent to the bay is a small notice stating that
tariffs apply to Blue Badge holders. It does not contain the
parking terms, payment methods, tariffs, or the £100 charge. It
is a partial advisory notice, not contractual terms, and it is
not visible to a driver who parks normally by driving forward
into the bay. The operator’s evidence does not contradict the
keeper’s account; it avoids the bay-level visibility point
entirely.
>
> The operator has also failed to rebut the Equality Act and BPA
CoP v9 Section 19 points raised in the original appeal. Simply
stating that “tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders” does not
demonstrate that reasonable adjustments were made or that key
information was accessible to disabled motorists. Nor has the
operator explained how a disabled driver could reasonably read
and understand the terms before parking, particularly given the
absence of any terms sign visible from the disabled bay.
>
> Finally, the operator has not rebutted the consideration
period point arising from the very short stay. It relies on
generic statements about leaving within 10 minutes and “grace
periods” but provides no evidence of how any consideration
period was applied, when it began, when it ended, or how it was
assessed for a disabled motorist. Repeating a policy statement
does not rebut a factual challenge.
>
> In summary, the operator has not rebutted the key points
raised in the appeal. It has not established PoFA compliance,
has not proved that the land is relevant land for PoFA purposes,
has failed to prove standing and written landowner authority
under the operative PPSCoP section 14.1 requirements, and has
not demonstrated compliant signage or accessibility under BPA
Code of Practice v9. On the operator’s own evidence, keeper
liability cannot arise and the appeal must be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 103861--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: December 27, 2025, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
sent - thank you very much for your help. let`s see what they
come back with.
#Post#: 110394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: February 19, 2026, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Popla received on 16th of Feb
--- Quote ---
>
> Decision
> Unsuccessful
> Assessor Name
> Rachel Hankinson
> Assessor summary of operator case
> The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
for not purchasing the appropriate parking time.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
> The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have
been summarised: • The operator failed to comply with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the period of parking
is not specified and the Notice to Keeper does not what tariff
applied, the cost of parking for the relevant duration or any
unpaid tariff or other charge due from the driver. • No sign
containing the terms and conditions was visible from within the
vehicle in the disabled bay. • Signage was inadequate and
unclear. • The operator has not demonstrated any reasonable
adjustments as required by the Equality Act 2010 as the driver
is a disabled person and holds a blue badge. • No evidence to
show landowner authority has been provided. • The ANPR images
does not show a breach, especially with consideration and grace
periods taken into account. After reviewing the parking
operator’s evidence pack, the appellant expands on their grounds
of appeal in further detail.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 110395--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: February 19, 2026, 2:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
> When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking
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. The appellant explains that the operator
failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
as the period of parking is not specified. 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. I note that the appellant
states that the period of parking was not included on the PCN.
However, it clearly states ‘’Period of Parking: 00h 12m 41s’’.
The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper does not state what
tariff applied, the cost of parking for the relevant duration or
any unpaid tariff or other charge due from the driver. However,
PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(d) states, ‘’ specify the total amount
of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which
is—(i)specified in the notice; and (ii)no later than the end of
the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by
post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current
address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));’’ In
this case, the charge makes it clear what charges are due from
the registered keeper of the vehicle as £100 or £60 within 14
days. The appellant says that there was no sign containing the
terms and conditions was visible from within the vehicle in the
disabled bay and signage was inadequate and unclear. The British
Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the
standards its parking operators need to comply with regarding
signage. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to
have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering
onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence
shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate
place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3
states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly
set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the
parking operator, I can see that these clearly state that terms
are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the parking
tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and any breaches
would result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator
has provided a site map and multiple images which show that
signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can
review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies
with the Code of Practice. Section 19.9 of the BPA Code of
practice states, ‘’So that disabled motorists can decide whether
they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign
containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be
viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign
must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled
motorists’’. After reviewing the evidence from the operator, I
can see there are several signs on site, including signs located
next to the disabled bays, which clearly state that tariffs do
apply to blue badge holders. Further signage was available on
site for the appellant to review. On the terms and conditions
signage, I can see that the text for disabled motorists is in
the regular print along with other terms listed. I am satisfied
that the signage is displayed in accordance with the BPA Code of
Practice, Section 19.9. The appellant states that the operator
has not demonstrated any reasonable adjustments as required by
the Equality Act 2010 as the driver is a disabled person and
holds a blue badge. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of
Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators
need to comply with. Section 4.2 of the Code says that where the
Blue Badge scheme is recognised, and a badge is to be displayed,
signs stating the relevant obligations must make this clear,
including where the badge is to be displayed within the vehicle.
Along with any information if actions are needed from the driver
to claim additional time. In this case, signage clearly states,
‘’These tariffs do apply to Blue Badge holders’’, indicating
that the driver would not be exempt from the displayed terms.
The PCN was issued on the date in question for not purchasing
the appropriate parking time. I appreciate the appellant states
that the driver is disabled and holds a blue badge, however, the
ANPR system would not be aware of this. In any event, if a
motorist is disabled or not, they would receive a PCN under
these circumstances. Therefore, I do not consider that the PCN
has been issued unfairly. The appellant says that no evidence to
show landowner authority has been provided. Section 14.1 of the
Code 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. In this case, the
document provided shows that the operator has sufficient
authority. The appellant states that the ANPR images does not
show a breach, especially with consideration and grace periods
taken into account. Section 5.1 of the Single Code of Practice
states that parking operators must allow a consideration period
of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in
Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park.
In this case, the driver exceeded the consideration period of 10
minutes. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a
parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the
parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply
other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the area, nor is a grace period a free
period of parking. In this case, the driver would not be
entitled to a grace period as no payment was made. Therefore,
the driver did not park in accordance with the terms on site.
Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant
has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail.
Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already
addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments
have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further
comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Ultimately,
it is the driver’s responsibility to seek out the terms of
parking, ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the
vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of
that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both
parties, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued
correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 111184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: February 26, 2026, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any update please
#Post#: 111185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 26, 2026, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are you seeking an update on? Your previous 2 posts do not
seem to contain any questions.
Now that POPLA is done, if you are continuing to fight the
matter it is simply a case of waiting to see if they commence
court proceedings. If you receive a Letter of Claim from their
solicitors you should come back for advice.
#Post#: 111198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Initial Parking PCN - No Permit - Y Ganolfan Community
Centre
DIR By: S.M
Date: February 26, 2026, 4:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> What are you seeking an update on? Your previous 2 posts do
not seem to contain any questions.
>
> Now that POPLA is done, if you are continuing to fight the
matter it is simply a case of waiting to see if they commence
court proceedings. If you receive a Letter of Claim from their
solicitors you should come back for advice.
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah gotcha i thought there was another process after POPLA. Will
wait till i get letter of claim.thank you
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page