After being bitten by a radioactive spider & gaining superpowers, Spiderman wins parking appeal.

As hard as they try, The British Parking Association Limited (BPA) seem unable to get the public to take their hurriedly cobbled together appeals service (POPLA) seriously.

After receiving a parking invoice from BPA member Highview Parking Ltd, Spiderman (Aka Mr Parker) wrote to the company to dispute his parking ticket, explaining that “he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him”. Highview Parking rejected Spiderman’s appeal, apparently disbelieving Spidey’s powers to overturn parking tickets.

Spiderman who helps pay the rent for his widowed aunt could not afford to pay Highview Parking’s invoice so he took them to controversial appeals service POPLA.

Spiderman could only ‘Marvel’ at winning his appeal when Shona Watson, one of the fantastic four students who moonlights as a decision maker for POPLA, upheld Spidey’s appeal.

Oh dear, what a web of deceit and a sticky mess for Highview Parking.


Also see; Highview Parking ‘spurred into immediate further action’ after losing at POPLA


Decision: Allowed

Assessor: Shona Watson

Date: May 2013

Successful Grounds: Visited site twice in one day – first in-last out error

PPC: Highview Parking Ltd

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 7 February 2013, the Operator issued a parking charge notice because on 26 January 2013 the vehicle with registration mark xxx was recorded via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Yate Shopping Centre Main Car Park for 5 hours 45 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 4 hours.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed within the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced and state that there is a 4 hour maximum stay. They also state that a failure to comply with the conditions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. The Appellant does not dispute this.

The Appellant made representations, submitting that he had visited the site twice on the date in question, but that the automatic number plate recognition system had not registered his vehicle leaving and then returning to the site. The Appellant produced photographs and receipts that he submits show that the vehicle was elsewhere between 10.30 and 15.49. The photographs are not time or date stamped.

The Appellant’s original representations states that he was bitten by a radioactive spider and has the superpower to cancel any parking charge notices issued to him.

It is noted that the Appellant states that although the Operator’s evidence pack is dated 22 March 2013, it was only sent to him by email on 25 March 2013. However there is no dispute that he received the evidence in good time for this hearing.

It should also be noted that CCTV evidence was sent to us on an unrecognised file format and therefore could not be viewed.

The Operator rejected the representations, as stated in the notice of rejection they sent, because they believe the timings stated on the parking charge notice are correct, and they were unable to accept the Appellant’s claim that he has superpowers.

The Operator produced images that appear to show the vehicle entering the site at 10.10 on 26 January 2013 and exiting at 15.55 the same day.

However the Operator has not responded to the Appellant’s submission that although he did enter the site at 10.10, he left the site before returning again later in the day and then leaving for the second time at 15.55. For example, the Operator could have provided a search for all the images of the vehicle with registration mark xxx taken on the date in question. The Operator received a copy of the Appellant’s submissions and therefore has had the opportunity to produce evidence to refute them.

It is noted that the Operator has produced representations made by the Appellant in relation to two other parking charge notices, however I am only considering evidence relating to this parking charge notice, number yyy.

I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not produced any evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that he visited Yate Shopping Centre twice on the date in question and therefore did not overstay the maximum stay. I have therefore not been satisfied that there was a breach of the terms and conditions.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Shona Watson



If you have a story you think we would be interested in please email:

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

  • Share/Bookmark

Leave a comment

Your comment

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree