08-15-2026, 04:24 PM
Hello again!
POPLA's Assessor has deemed my claim unsuccessful:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to pay or register for the full duration of their stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant disputes that the notice complies with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). They advise that it is not made clear why the PCN was issued. They have asked for evidence of the signage on site. They explain that the operator has not provided any evidence that the terms and conditions were breached. They have asked to see evidence that the operator hold a valid contract with the landowner. The appellant does not believe that the PCN is justified. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and receipt for charging their EV.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle in their original appeal to the operator as such the operator is not relying upon transferring liability using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). This means that there is no requirement for the notice to comply with the act.
The reason for issue is clearly stated on the PCN. In this site hotel guests can register and all other users including those using the EV chargers must pay for their time on site. The operator does not know which category of user a driver is until the appeal as such the reason for issue is both clear and accurate. The operator has provided date and time stamped photos showing it signs on site before this parking event. It has also provided a map to show that there are signs throughout the site. The signs are white so stand out and the driver could not have reached the EV charger without passing many signs.
There is no requirement for specific terms and conditions at the EV chargers. The signs make it clear that all users who fail to pay or register will receive a parking charge of £100. The signs on site comply fully with Section 3 of the Single Code of Practice.
As the signs do not state that EV charger users are exempt from the stated restrictions they would still apply. A driver cannot charge their vehicle without parking in a EV charge bay as such it is clear that the terms and conditions would still apply. Any contract the driver agreed to with the EV charger provide as no relevance at all to the outcome of this assessment as it is with a third party and not the parking operator.
The operator has provided a list which shows that the driver did not pay for parking and was not registered as a guest of the Premier Inn. Section 14 of the Single Code of Practice requires the operator to have an agreement in place before it starts management of a site. The operator has confirmed that it holds such an agreement and the fact that it has equipment on site is sufficient evidence to prove that it is the case.
There is no requirement for the operator to provide a copy of its contract to prove this as the appellant has not right to see this information which is commercially sensitive. The ANPR images are sufficient to prove how long a driver was on site and in conjunction with the list of payments can prove if the terms and conditions were breached.
The court case of Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis confirmed that the purpose of a PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. While the driver has proven that they were charging their vehicle the operator has proven no payment was made. This confirms that the PCN is justified as the driver failed to comply. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not pay for their time on site and was not registered and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, this site does not require any payment to park either as a hotel user or an EV Charger user.
I look forward to receiving your advice.
POPLA's Assessor has deemed my claim unsuccessful:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to pay or register for the full duration of their stay.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant disputes that the notice complies with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). They advise that it is not made clear why the PCN was issued. They have asked for evidence of the signage on site. They explain that the operator has not provided any evidence that the terms and conditions were breached. They have asked to see evidence that the operator hold a valid contract with the landowner. The appellant does not believe that the PCN is justified. The appellant has commented on the parking operator’s evidence. In support of their appeal the appellant has provided a document detailing their appeal and receipt for charging their EV.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant admitted that they were the driver of the vehicle in their original appeal to the operator as such the operator is not relying upon transferring liability using the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012). This means that there is no requirement for the notice to comply with the act.
The reason for issue is clearly stated on the PCN. In this site hotel guests can register and all other users including those using the EV chargers must pay for their time on site. The operator does not know which category of user a driver is until the appeal as such the reason for issue is both clear and accurate. The operator has provided date and time stamped photos showing it signs on site before this parking event. It has also provided a map to show that there are signs throughout the site. The signs are white so stand out and the driver could not have reached the EV charger without passing many signs.
There is no requirement for specific terms and conditions at the EV chargers. The signs make it clear that all users who fail to pay or register will receive a parking charge of £100. The signs on site comply fully with Section 3 of the Single Code of Practice.
As the signs do not state that EV charger users are exempt from the stated restrictions they would still apply. A driver cannot charge their vehicle without parking in a EV charge bay as such it is clear that the terms and conditions would still apply. Any contract the driver agreed to with the EV charger provide as no relevance at all to the outcome of this assessment as it is with a third party and not the parking operator.
The operator has provided a list which shows that the driver did not pay for parking and was not registered as a guest of the Premier Inn. Section 14 of the Single Code of Practice requires the operator to have an agreement in place before it starts management of a site. The operator has confirmed that it holds such an agreement and the fact that it has equipment on site is sufficient evidence to prove that it is the case.
There is no requirement for the operator to provide a copy of its contract to prove this as the appellant has not right to see this information which is commercially sensitive. The ANPR images are sufficient to prove how long a driver was on site and in conjunction with the list of payments can prove if the terms and conditions were breached.
The court case of Parking Eye Ltd V Beavis confirmed that the purpose of a PCN was to encourage compliance with the terms and conditions. While the driver has proven that they were charging their vehicle the operator has proven no payment was made. This confirms that the PCN is justified as the driver failed to comply. After considering the evidence from both parties, the driver did not pay for their time on site and was not registered and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, this site does not require any payment to park either as a hotel user or an EV Charger user.
I look forward to receiving your advice.
