Euro Car Parks PCN - Parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction- Horse & Barge, Reading

Can you upload the evidence pack?

Does their evidence address the individual appeal points?

Can you upload the evidence pack?

Does their evidence address the individual appeal points?

Sure, I will find a way to upload.

I don't think they are addressing the appeal points. They have provided a sample NTK not the one sent to me.

Can you upload the evidence pack?

Does their evidence address the individual appeal points?

Here is the complete document, with personal information redacted.
Please advise on the response and kindly let me know if any issue in opening the document.

You need to make it accessible.

You need to make it accessible.

Sharing multiple links in case one doesn't work, please check again, thanks

Comments on Euro Car Parks evidence.


I note with interest that ECP have not engaged with any of my evidence or specific appeal points.

This appears to mean an automatic win for the appellant since the operator is required to rebut each appeal point under POPLA rules?

However, I note from other appeals on the internet that POPLA Assessors often break from protocol and ignore these specific rules.

I will therefore make the following comments based on what the operator has submitted.

Simply stating that, "our notice is compliant" does not make it compliant - it does not matter how many time the operator states this and continually stating this does not make this missing wording magically appear.

Furthermore, the operators failure to correctly engage in the rebuttal process is potentially detrimental to the appellant as the operator is expecting the POPLA Assessor to generate the individual rebuttal points on their behalf - this is not the Assessor's role in the formal process.


The operator has submitted a generic evidence pack rather than an evidence pack / response in keeping with my appeal.

This appears deliberate and I believe that they have taken this approach as they are unable to rebut non PoFA compliance appeal points using their own NtK because the NtK does not meet the requirements for either wording or format.

I will once again highlight the short comings of the operators NtK.

I would request that the POPLA Assessor keeps firmly to my appeal points in order to make sure all appeal points are addressed using the legislation.

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) specifies;

"The notice must inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full"

However, the operator's notice specifies;

"You are now advised under the paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full."

You will immediately notice that the operator's sentence fails to meet the complete requirements of 9(2)(b) - whilst they specify that the driver is required to pay the parking charge, the sentence fails to state the second part of the requirement, namely; that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

In order to demonstrate integrity and transparency, if the POPLA Assessor believes that the notice does contain the sentence (the parking charges have not been paid in full) required by 9(2)(b), I would respectfully ask the Assessor to quote, verbatim, the sentence from the NtK which meets the two requirements of 9(2)(b).


The missing information is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA as total compliance is required.


Further,

PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) specifies the following;

The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

Sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(2)(ii) then set out both the wording and format for the two conditions of the invitation which 9(2)(e) requires.

The two conditions must be separated by the word 'or' - the word 'or' has a defined legal meaning in legislation so must be contained in the invitation.

The compliant sentence would therefore read as follows; (or something very close)

Your are notified under paragraph 9(2)(e) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver - the keeper is therefore invited to (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."

The required paragraph containing the statutory wording and two limbed invitation (separated by the word 'or') is not present on the operator's NtK.

Once again this immediately fatal to the operator's reliance on PoFA.

When examined, the operators NtK jumps directly from their (incorrect) version of 9(2)(b) straight onto the requirements of 9(2)(f) - the requirements of 9(2)(e) are totally over looked.

Once again, in order to demonstrate integrity and transparency, if the POPLA Assessor believes that the notice does contain the sentence which specifies both the mandatory wording and two limbed invitation then I would respectfully ask the Assessor to quote, verbatim, the sentence from the NtK which meets all the requirements of 9(2)(e) along with the two conditions of the keeper invitation specified in sub-paragraphs 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).

This information is not present.

I am happy that paragraph 9(2)(f) is present and compliant but the presence of 9(2)(f) does not negate the requirements of 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e).

Many thanks!

I will respond with the exact wording in your post.


Regards
R

Response posted now, fingers crossed !

Hello, how would I proceed from here?

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
----
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the vehicle was parked without a valid PayByPhone transaction covering the full duration of the stay.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. For ease of reference, I will refer to the registered keeper as the appellant throughout this decision. The appellant has challenged the PCN on the basis that the notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), and that they do not consider the parking operator has established liability for the charge. After reviewing the operator’s evidence pack, the appellant has expanded on their grounds of appeal. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the evidence provided and the handling of the appeal. POPLA’s role is to assess whether the PCN was issued correctly, based on the evidence supplied by both parties. POPLA cannot direct how a parking operator manages its internal appeals process or require it to provide evidence outside the scope of the appeal. If the appellant wishes to raise a complaint about the operator’s handling of the matter or requires any additional evidence, they should contact the parking operator direct.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
POPLA is an independent, single-stage appeals service. I must determine whether the parking operator has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the PCN was issued correctly and that the terms and conditions of the car park were either accepted and breached, or otherwise enforceable against the appellant. The parking operator has provided a copy of the signage displayed at the site, a site map showing the position of the signs, ANPR images showing the vehicle entering and exiting the car park, and PayByPhone/payment records for the date of the event. The signage states that paid parking is available Monday to Friday from 17:00 to 08:00, and all day Saturday and Sunday. It sets out the applicable tariffs, the available payment method, and explains that failure to comply with the terms and conditions may result in a £100 PCN being issued. The ANPR images show that the vehicle entered the car park on 18 April 2026 at 13:37 and exited at 18:10. This amounts to a total stay of 4 hours and 33 minutes. The parking operator’s payment evidence shows that a PayByPhone transaction was made at 14:17, covering parking for 3 hours and 42 minutes, at a cost of £5.70. I have considered the appellant’s comments regarding PoFA. Where a parking operator seeks to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, it must comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA and the PCN must be issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention. In this case, having reviewed the PCN and the parking operator’s evidence, I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided sufficient evidence to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper due to no driver details being supplied. I therefore find that keeper liability has been established. Therefore I am satisfied that the PCN is PoFA 2012 compliant. I have also considered whether the driver had sufficient notice of the terms. The parking operator’s evidence shows that signs were present at the entrance and throughout the site. The signs clearly described the parking terms, the requirement to make payment, and the consequence of non-compliance. I am satisfied that the terms were prominently brought to the attention of motorists and were capable of forming a contract. The evidence shows that payment was made after the vehicle entered the site and that the payment purchased did not cover the full period the vehicle remained parked. The total stay was 4 hours and 33 minutes, while the PayByPhone transaction only covered 3 hours and 42 minutes. On this basis, the vehicle remained parked beyond the paid-for period. The appellant has not provided persuasive evidence to show that a further valid payment was made, that the vehicle was exempt from the terms, or that the parking operator’s records are unreliable. While I acknowledge the appellant’s position, the evidence supplied by the operator demonstrates that the parking session did not cover the full duration of the stay Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the advertised terms and that sufficient payment is made for the time the vehicle remains on site. In this case, I am satisfied that the parking operator has shown that the vehicle was parked in breach of those terms. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly. Accordingly, this appeal is refused. As the decision has now been issued for the appellants appeal, we have reached the end of our process and there is no opportunity to appeal. POPLA is a one-stage appeal process and the decision is final meaning its involvement in the appeal has come to an end

Hello, how would I proceed from here?

Assuming you want to continue to challenge the matter, ignore the debt collector's letters, and come back when you receive a Letter of Claim from ECP's solicitors.

Who was the Assessor?

They completely skip over the relevant POFA appeal points.

Hi,

Lyndsey H.

My AI is disappointed as well. See the remarks below:

This is a disappointing and, frankly, a poorly reasoned decision. Let me be straight with you about what happened.

What the assessor got wrong

The core of your appeal was that ECP's NtK fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) — no invitation to the keeper to pay. The assessor did not engage with this at all. Look at the critical sentence:

"I am satisfied that the parking operator has provided sufficient evidence to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper due to no driver details being supplied. I therefore find that keeper liability has been established."

This is exactly the unlawful inference b789 warned about, now endorsed by the assessor. They've treated "no driver named" as the thing that establishes keeper liability — which is backwards. Keeper liability requires strict PoFA compliance first; your not naming the driver is only relevant after the notice is compliant. The assessor never actually checked the 9(2)(e)(i) wording, never addressed the orange rectangle point, and simply asserted "the PCN is PoFA 2012 compliant" without analysis.

This is, bluntly, one of the "intellectually malnourished" POPLA outcomes b789 explicitly predicted. It doesn't mean the argument was wrong — it means the assessor didn't apply it.

Not bad for AI - I am not normally a fan.

This is classic Lyndsey Howgate and I was 90% certain that she was going be be revealed as the Assessor in this instance.

Lyndsey Howgate's normal modus operandi (in the instance of a non POFA complaint appeal) is to ignore (skip over) the specific appeal points which the appellant puts forward in their submitted appeal.

Instead of addressing the appellant's appeal points she provides answers to her own 'imaginary' appeal.

As a result the assessment often contains a large chunk (the majority) of text which bears no relationship whatsoever to the appeal which was actually made - in this instance the assessment contains loads of waffle and is 'padded out' with things which you never raised.

She deliberately keeps those answer strictly to those areas of POFA compliance which she knows she can demonstrate.

Notice how she fails to address ANY of the non compliance with both Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(e)?

In fact, she never even references those appeal points at any stage in the assessment - it's like you never even raised those appeal points - this is not by accident but is the recognisable Lyndsey Howgate 'deflection technique'  - put simply, she recognises that any engagement with those appeal points will simply lead to a demonstration of non compliance so she is super careful to side-step those issues.

Similarly, she recognises that clarity in relation to the true statutory requirements of the Schedule will also lead to a demonstration of non-compliance so, (as you correctly point out) she comes up with her own personal paraphrased version of POFA compliance which is carefully designed to fit in with the operator's NtK rather than referencing the precise wording of the statute which she knows the NtK will not meet - another recognisable 'deflection technique'.


We can come up with a complaint if you like?

This is why I advise against long appeals to parking companies and to POPLA, because they simply ignore the difficult appeal points in their replies.

This is increasingly common, perhaps because of Lyndsey Howgate?

It's different for a defence in court, because they will consider all the points. POPLA isn't a court. So there's a good basis here for a defence in due course.

The problem is that, unless there's a single overwhelming appeal point, it's easy to submit multiple appeal points. But a core appeal point should be made on its own in my opinion, to prevent POPLA from ignoring it.

But we are where we are - not the end of the world.

The problem is that, unless there's a single overwhelming appeal point, it's easy to submit multiple appeal points. But a core appeal point should be made on its own in my opinion, to prevent POPLA from ignoring it.

I'll keep this brief so as not to stray too far from the OP's immediate case, but I'm on the fence about this. I agree with not lumping in any old weak argument "kitchen sink" style, but I'm also not sure I'd recommend reducing appeals down to a single point in a bid to cater to the worst assessors, at the expense of multiple strong appeal points (where they exist). This was a short appeal in my view, and although there were three appeal points, in reality all three were essentially sub-points of one overarching point. This didn't prevent the assessor from dodging the salient points.