08-08-2026, 04:04 PM
@ibadusaf, the fact that POPLA did not uphold your appeal does not mean that you now have to pay UKPC. POPLA's decision does not amount to a court judgment. POPLA itself confirms that, following an unsuccessful appeal, the operator will expect payment and that POPLA will not reconsider the appeal; if the charge continues to be disputed, the matter can ultimately only be determined through the ordinary legal process.
DO NOT pay anything simply because POPLA has rejected the appeal.
It would be useful if you could post the full POPLA decision, including the name of the assessor, because I keep track of their decisions and reasoning. Please insert some paragraph breaks rather than reproducing the usual POPLA wall of text.
From your description, there appears to be a fairly obvious problem with the assessor's reasoning and proves that they have very little actual knowledge of the legislation.
The assessor apparently distinguished Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E on the basis that this was a "No Parking" area. That does not dispose of Jopson at all. In fact, it goes directly to the point HHJ Harris QC considered.
At paragraph 19 of Jopson, the judge expressly dealt with a purported prohibition upon parking, and distinguished that from the temporary stopping necessary to enable passengers to alight or goods to be loaded or unloaded. At paragraph 20 he went further and explained that the concept of parking involves leaving a vehicle for longer than is required for such activities; simply stopping a vehicle does not automatically make it "parked". The judgment specifically recognised the practical necessity of delivery vehicles stopping while goods are taken to premises.
So saying, in effect, "this was a no-parking area, therefore Jopson does not apply" rather misses the point. The question remains whether what you were actually doing amounted to parking, as prohibited by the sign, or temporary stopping for the purpose of carrying out the delivery.
Nor does simply citing ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 resolve that question. Beavis concerned a motorist who had actually parked in a retail car park offering two hours' free parking and remained for 56 minutes beyond the permitted two-hour period. The Supreme Court considered whether the £85 contractual charge arising from that overstay was an unenforceable penalty and whether the parking scheme served a legitimate interest.
It did not decide that every stationary vehicle is "parked"; it did not concern loading or commercial deliveries; and it did not establish that displaying a sign automatically converts every prohibited activity into an enforceable contractual parking charge. BeforeBeavis becomes relevant to the amount or enforceability of a charge, UKPC still has to establish the underlying contractual basis for liability in the circumstances of this particular case.
Likewise, an industry Code of Practice does not somehow override the legal distinction considered by a Circuit Judge on appeal in Jopson. A code may prescribe standards for signage and parking management, but it does not determine, as a matter of law and fact, whether a particular activity amounts to "parking".
What happens next? They will now try and intimidate you into paying their charge. You will start to receive debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all those. 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.
Debt recovery letters mean nothing. They cannot affect your credit rating and there is nothing on your credit record, no matter how many you receive. Use them as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray, for all anyone cares. Do not be intimidated by them.
Ordinary debt collectors have no court judgment to enforce. Merely receiving those letters does not create a CCJ or place a judgment on your credit record. A judgment only exists if court proceedings result in the court formally deciding that money is owed. Even then, a County Court judgment paid in full within one month is removed from the register.
So debt recovery correspondence can safely be treated as noise. Do not, however, ignore a genuine Letter of Claim (Loc) or an actual County Court claim.
If a bulk litigation solicitor sends an LoC, post it here. We will respond properly under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, dispute the alleged debt and require the relevant documents and evidence. The Protocol expressly provides for the debtor to respond and request documentation, and requires the creditor to provide requested information or explain why it is unavailable.
If UKPC ultimately issues a County Court claim, that claim can easily be defended. You have already preserved useful contemporaneous evidence showing that you were carrying out Amazon Flex deliveries, and Jopson would form an important part of the defence. We would also examine the exact wording and positioning of UKPC's signs, whether those signs actually offered a contractual licence capable of acceptance, UKPC's authority from the landholder, the precise alleged contractual breach, and whatever evidence UKPC produces concerning the alleged 17-minute "parking" event.
Most importantly, don't confuse POPLA's opinion with a judicial determination. POPLA has finished its involvement. UKPC can demand payment; you can continue to dispute liability. If UKPC wants a legally enforceable determination against you, it ultimately has to persuade a court.
DO NOT pay anything simply because POPLA has rejected the appeal.
It would be useful if you could post the full POPLA decision, including the name of the assessor, because I keep track of their decisions and reasoning. Please insert some paragraph breaks rather than reproducing the usual POPLA wall of text.
From your description, there appears to be a fairly obvious problem with the assessor's reasoning and proves that they have very little actual knowledge of the legislation.
The assessor apparently distinguished Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E on the basis that this was a "No Parking" area. That does not dispose of Jopson at all. In fact, it goes directly to the point HHJ Harris QC considered.
At paragraph 19 of Jopson, the judge expressly dealt with a purported prohibition upon parking, and distinguished that from the temporary stopping necessary to enable passengers to alight or goods to be loaded or unloaded. At paragraph 20 he went further and explained that the concept of parking involves leaving a vehicle for longer than is required for such activities; simply stopping a vehicle does not automatically make it "parked". The judgment specifically recognised the practical necessity of delivery vehicles stopping while goods are taken to premises.
So saying, in effect, "this was a no-parking area, therefore Jopson does not apply" rather misses the point. The question remains whether what you were actually doing amounted to parking, as prohibited by the sign, or temporary stopping for the purpose of carrying out the delivery.
Nor does simply citing ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 resolve that question. Beavis concerned a motorist who had actually parked in a retail car park offering two hours' free parking and remained for 56 minutes beyond the permitted two-hour period. The Supreme Court considered whether the £85 contractual charge arising from that overstay was an unenforceable penalty and whether the parking scheme served a legitimate interest.
It did not decide that every stationary vehicle is "parked"; it did not concern loading or commercial deliveries; and it did not establish that displaying a sign automatically converts every prohibited activity into an enforceable contractual parking charge. BeforeBeavis becomes relevant to the amount or enforceability of a charge, UKPC still has to establish the underlying contractual basis for liability in the circumstances of this particular case.
Likewise, an industry Code of Practice does not somehow override the legal distinction considered by a Circuit Judge on appeal in Jopson. A code may prescribe standards for signage and parking management, but it does not determine, as a matter of law and fact, whether a particular activity amounts to "parking".
What happens next? They will now try and intimidate you into paying their charge. You will start to receive debt recovery letters. You can safely ignore all those. 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.
Debt recovery letters mean nothing. They cannot affect your credit rating and there is nothing on your credit record, no matter how many you receive. Use them as kindling or to line the bottom of a cat litter tray, for all anyone cares. Do not be intimidated by them.
Ordinary debt collectors have no court judgment to enforce. Merely receiving those letters does not create a CCJ or place a judgment on your credit record. A judgment only exists if court proceedings result in the court formally deciding that money is owed. Even then, a County Court judgment paid in full within one month is removed from the register.
So debt recovery correspondence can safely be treated as noise. Do not, however, ignore a genuine Letter of Claim (Loc) or an actual County Court claim.
If a bulk litigation solicitor sends an LoC, post it here. We will respond properly under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, dispute the alleged debt and require the relevant documents and evidence. The Protocol expressly provides for the debtor to respond and request documentation, and requires the creditor to provide requested information or explain why it is unavailable.
If UKPC ultimately issues a County Court claim, that claim can easily be defended. You have already preserved useful contemporaneous evidence showing that you were carrying out Amazon Flex deliveries, and Jopson would form an important part of the defence. We would also examine the exact wording and positioning of UKPC's signs, whether those signs actually offered a contractual licence capable of acceptance, UKPC's authority from the landholder, the precise alleged contractual breach, and whatever evidence UKPC produces concerning the alleged 17-minute "parking" event.
Most importantly, don't confuse POPLA's opinion with a judicial determination. POPLA has finished its involvement. UKPC can demand payment; you can continue to dispute liability. If UKPC wants a legally enforceable determination against you, it ultimately has to persuade a court.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
