08-19-2026, 10:38 PM
Thank you for your welcome, @b789 , and thank you for your comprehensive reply too.
The POPLA response (broken up!) is below, and I've attached copies of the signage (images S1 and S5) which TPS submitted to POPLA. Their images date from 2024 (a year + before the alleged contravention), and I have not, yet, verified the signage in place, though I can arrange to do so.
In terms of signage clarity, I propose that "S1" is a very clear "Patient and Visitor Only" sign, which makes no mention of registration using a separate system inside. A reasonable driver, having noticed this sign, would only glance at the second "S5" sign, see the same information repeated in large text at the top, and not read the screed of smaller text underneath. The need to 'book in' at all, let alone inside, is not sufficiently clear (CRA 2015). Would you agree?
Two things, if I may...
- Patient/Visitor: if I had had sight of the signage when submitting the original appeal to TPS, I would have stated "visitor" rather than "patient", both being permitted from the signs. I shifted to include "visitor" for POPLA.
The medical practice in question is an NHS practice, and the driver (or occupant) an NHS patient, who is thus entitled to be treated at that practice should the need arise. They were not, however, visiting on a pre-booked appointment, nor are registered at that practice for routine care. I don't want to get too deep in to "what is a patient" as it could be pages of text to work that out: so "visitor" seems simpler, since they were visiting.
Clearly it should be possible to park at the practice without a pre-booked appointment or invitation to visit (even a registered patient (or someone on their behalf) might need to call in to ask for a fresh sample pot, a form, a repeat prescription, f.e.).
- Appeal to the Practice: Kudos to your knowledge of the known (and admitted) issue with the TPS system at this specific practice!
It might well be worth a request to them directly. However, given the above, I am not sure this is likely to lead anywhere - i.e. there is no appointment for a registered patient which they can easily reference on their system to tally with the visit. There is the potential risk, if the practice are engaged in internal correspondence with TPS, that they reveal the identity of the driver (if the practice requested that information in order to look further at the parking charge). I will write a fairly generic note (as RK) and see if this helps matters.
Aside from a generic note to the practice, I think that POFA failure under (9)(2)(e)(i), and less importantly (9)(2)(a), should, in theory, be enough for dismissal - it's a failure of full compliance, let alone strict compliance. Anything else argued should not be required to be considered, as their case should fall at this first hurdle. Or am I overly optimistic?
= = = = = = = = = = = =
POPLA Response:
Assessor: Gayle Stanton
Assessor Case Summary:
The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal:
• The Notice to Keeper issued by the operator does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, the operator is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge.
• The operator’s signage is not clear.
• The PCN and TPS portal only show ANPR entry/exit images. TPS has not proven the vehicle was parked where terms applied or evidenced a ‘period of parking’. The breach and relevant signage remain unproven, the vehicle was not left unattended, and no contract was formed.
• Even if ‘parked’ (which is not admitted), a "visitor or patient" was present, and thus had entitlement to free parking. Any breach was caused by the parking operator’s failure to signpost the Vehicle Registration Mark entry process adequately.
The appellant has provided comments in response to the operator’s case file including the following summary:
The Operator’s failure to fully comply with the statutory requirements of POFA (2012) Paragraph 9 – which the Operator does not dispute - is sufficient reason for this Parking Charge to be cancelled. With the additional factors noted also taken into account, it is proportionate and reasonable that the appeal should be allowed, and the Parking Charge cancelled.
Assessor supporting rational [sic]:
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 parking on the site. The appellant states that the PCN is not PoFA compliant and 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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant in all aspects. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. 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 evidence of the signage on the site and this advises the following : Patient and visitor parking only, This car park is monitored using Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and Parking Attendants, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, Patients and visitors must validate their parking inside the surgery, Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of £100. Due to the above I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies with Section 3.1.3 of The Code.
The appellant states that the ANPR does not prove parking. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no permit can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for 23 minutes on the day in question. The appellant has advised that they had not parked on the day and Section 2.19 and 2.24 of the code clarifies what constitutes parking. This defines parking as the length of time a vehicle remains on controlled land, including the consideration period. A vehicle may be classed as parked even if the driver stays inside, keeps the engine running, or once the consideration period has ended. Parking is simply a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. Independent research shows ANPR is generally reliable, but POPLA sometimes receives appeals alleging errors. POPLA assesses whether any evidence casts doubt on ANPR accuracy. The operator must first prove the PCN was issued correctly; if it does, the burden shifts to the appellant. If the appellant provides evidence or an account that challenges the ANPR’s reliability, the assessor decides whether this is sufficient. Physical evidence, such as receipts showing the appellant was elsewhere, is usually most persuasive.
The appellant has stated that they were entitled to park and The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. It is noted that it may be appropriate for evidence to be requested where it is lacking before the parking operator finalises their decision. In this case no evidence was provided to the parking operator during these initial stages, nor was it provided when requested by the operator. Due to this I am satisfied that the operator is not required to reduce the charge to £20.
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site without a permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The POPLA response (broken up!) is below, and I've attached copies of the signage (images S1 and S5) which TPS submitted to POPLA. Their images date from 2024 (a year + before the alleged contravention), and I have not, yet, verified the signage in place, though I can arrange to do so.
In terms of signage clarity, I propose that "S1" is a very clear "Patient and Visitor Only" sign, which makes no mention of registration using a separate system inside. A reasonable driver, having noticed this sign, would only glance at the second "S5" sign, see the same information repeated in large text at the top, and not read the screed of smaller text underneath. The need to 'book in' at all, let alone inside, is not sufficiently clear (CRA 2015). Would you agree?
Two things, if I may...
- Patient/Visitor: if I had had sight of the signage when submitting the original appeal to TPS, I would have stated "visitor" rather than "patient", both being permitted from the signs. I shifted to include "visitor" for POPLA.
The medical practice in question is an NHS practice, and the driver (or occupant) an NHS patient, who is thus entitled to be treated at that practice should the need arise. They were not, however, visiting on a pre-booked appointment, nor are registered at that practice for routine care. I don't want to get too deep in to "what is a patient" as it could be pages of text to work that out: so "visitor" seems simpler, since they were visiting.
Clearly it should be possible to park at the practice without a pre-booked appointment or invitation to visit (even a registered patient (or someone on their behalf) might need to call in to ask for a fresh sample pot, a form, a repeat prescription, f.e.).
- Appeal to the Practice: Kudos to your knowledge of the known (and admitted) issue with the TPS system at this specific practice!
It might well be worth a request to them directly. However, given the above, I am not sure this is likely to lead anywhere - i.e. there is no appointment for a registered patient which they can easily reference on their system to tally with the visit. There is the potential risk, if the practice are engaged in internal correspondence with TPS, that they reveal the identity of the driver (if the practice requested that information in order to look further at the parking charge). I will write a fairly generic note (as RK) and see if this helps matters.
Aside from a generic note to the practice, I think that POFA failure under (9)(2)(e)(i), and less importantly (9)(2)(a), should, in theory, be enough for dismissal - it's a failure of full compliance, let alone strict compliance. Anything else argued should not be required to be considered, as their case should fall at this first hurdle. Or am I overly optimistic?
= = = = = = = = = = = =
POPLA Response:
Assessor: Gayle Stanton
Assessor Case Summary:
The appellant has provided the following grounds of appeal:
• The Notice to Keeper issued by the operator does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA 2012. As such, the operator is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge.
• The operator’s signage is not clear.
• The PCN and TPS portal only show ANPR entry/exit images. TPS has not proven the vehicle was parked where terms applied or evidenced a ‘period of parking’. The breach and relevant signage remain unproven, the vehicle was not left unattended, and no contract was formed.
• Even if ‘parked’ (which is not admitted), a "visitor or patient" was present, and thus had entitlement to free parking. Any breach was caused by the parking operator’s failure to signpost the Vehicle Registration Mark entry process adequately.
The appellant has provided comments in response to the operator’s case file including the following summary:
The Operator’s failure to fully comply with the statutory requirements of POFA (2012) Paragraph 9 – which the Operator does not dispute - is sufficient reason for this Parking Charge to be cancelled. With the additional factors noted also taken into account, it is proportionate and reasonable that the appeal should be allowed, and the Parking Charge cancelled.
Assessor supporting rational [sic]:
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 parking on the site. The appellant states that the PCN is not PoFA compliant and 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. In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle.
The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant in all aspects. I will therefore be assessing keeper liability.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators are required to comply with. 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 evidence of the signage on the site and this advises the following : Patient and visitor parking only, This car park is monitored using Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and Parking Attendants, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, Patients and visitors must validate their parking inside the surgery, Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge of £100. Due to the above I am satisfied that the signage on the site complies with Section 3.1.3 of The Code.
The appellant states that the ANPR does not prove parking. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, which capture vehicles entering and exiting the site to calculate the time a vehicle has remained in the car park. This data captured is then compared with the online transaction record, and therefore if no permit can be located for the correct vehicle registration, a PCN is issued. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked on the site for 23 minutes on the day in question. The appellant has advised that they had not parked on the day and Section 2.19 and 2.24 of the code clarifies what constitutes parking. This defines parking as the length of time a vehicle remains on controlled land, including the consideration period. A vehicle may be classed as parked even if the driver stays inside, keeps the engine running, or once the consideration period has ended. Parking is simply a vehicle being stationary other than in the course of driving. Independent research shows ANPR is generally reliable, but POPLA sometimes receives appeals alleging errors. POPLA assesses whether any evidence casts doubt on ANPR accuracy. The operator must first prove the PCN was issued correctly; if it does, the burden shifts to the appellant. If the appellant provides evidence or an account that challenges the ANPR’s reliability, the assessor decides whether this is sufficient. Physical evidence, such as receipts showing the appellant was elsewhere, is usually most persuasive.
The appellant has stated that they were entitled to park and The Appeals Charter is a statement on how certain circumstances should be handled by the parking operator. This details when a parking charge should be cancelled, and when a parking charge should be reduced to £20, when an appeal is based on an error or mitigating circumstances. Section F.3 of the Code lists specific circumstances where a parking operator must reduce a PCN to £20, subject to appropriate evidence being provided. It is noted that it may be appropriate for evidence to be requested where it is lacking before the parking operator finalises their decision. In this case no evidence was provided to the parking operator during these initial stages, nor was it provided when requested by the operator. Due to this I am satisfied that the operator is not required to reduce the charge to £20.
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the driver parked on the site without a permit and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
