Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Needadvice on April 22, 2026, 12:00:13 am
-
Thank you very much!
-
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.
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).
You could then add your further points on signage etc.
-
Could you post up the text of your appeal?
Did you use the individual appeal point?
Hello @ InterCity125,
Apologies for the delay to revert. here is the text of my POPLA appeal as submitted:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only, since the driver is not known to the operator. The driver has not been identified.
I understand that, under POPLA rules, I must set out my appeal points and the operator must rebut them.
APPEAL POINT ONE – Non-compliance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
The operator’s Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e).
In particular, the NtK does not contain the mandatory wording:
“the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out the following;
Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that 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 -
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.
I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NtK, to the PoPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO – That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operator’s NtK does not set out the mandatory two-limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid
parking charges or nominate another driver.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
Once again here, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that 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 -
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to notify the creditor of the name and current service address of the driver and to pass the notice to the driver.
An examination of the operator’s NtK reveals that the NtK fails to provide the required two-limbed invitation to the keeper.
Both above conditions must be satisfied in order for the operator to rely on PoFA and transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two-limbed legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that there is no clear invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, as specifically required by paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Once again, I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges'. Please note that terminology such as “notified” or “advised” is not equivalent to the statutory requirement of an “invitation to the keeper” under paragraph 9(2)(e). The wording used in the legislation is specific and must be properly reflected in the Notice to Keeper.
Please also note that, the parking operator is required to meet ‘all applicable conditions' under Schedule 4 in order to hold the keeper liable for the unpaid charges.
The operator’s references to keeper liability and paragraph 9(2)(f) do not remove the separate requirement to fully comply with paragraph 9(2)(e).
As the NtK does not comply with the mandatory requirements of PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.
I therefore put the operator to strict proof of full PoFA compliance and ask the operator to specifically rebut these appeal points by identifying where the mandatory wording appears on the NtK.
APPEAL POINT FOUR – No evidence of the required period of actual parking.
The NtK relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not establish the actual period of parking as required by PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a).
ANPR captures vehicle movements entering and exiting the site, rather than the actual period during which the vehicle was parked.
APPEAL POINT FIVE – Failure to account for non-parking time / grace periods.
The recorded duration includes time spent:
• locating a parking space in a busy car park
• queuing to exit due to congestion, traffic lights and the one-way system
This is not parking time and should not form part of any alleged parking period. The recorded time includes time spent entering the site, locating a parking space, manoeuvring, and exiting the site, including delays caused by congestion and traffic lights immediately outside the car park exit on what was a particularly busy bank holiday period.
APPEAL POINT SIX – Inadequate signage
There is inadequate signage in the small bay area near the exit of the car park where no visible terms and conditions signage is present.
The terms and conditions were not adequately brought to the attention of drivers using this specific area of the car park and therefore no contract could have been formed.
APPEAL POINT SEVEN – No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary landowner authority to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
The operator is required to produce an unredacted contemporaneous contract showing authority to issue parking charges and pursue them to recovery.
In the absence of such evidence, the operator has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In light of all the above, I request that the charge be cancelled.
-
Could you post up the text of your appeal?
Did you use the individual appeal point?
-
Hello,
Update on my POPLA appeal.
I have now received the operator's evidence pack from Euro Car Parks in response to my POPLA appeal. POPLA has given me 7 days to provide comments on the evidence before the appeal is assessed.
I have attached/uploaded the full evidence pack and would be very grateful if the forum advisers could review it and suggest the strongest points for my POPLA comments, as I have limited time to respond.
The PDF file is available through the Dropbox here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0fsnshuanls8y5csa88ux/Europarks-response-to-POPLA-appeal_Dropbox.pdf?rlkey=ophucmizi3z0yyvq27am2ytxn&st=nff8uakv&dl=0
Having reviewed the evidence myself, my initial observations are as follows:
1. Euro Car Parks appears to rely on generic statements and standard template responses rather than addressing all of the specific points raised in my appeal.
2. In relation to signage, they have provided photographs of signs located in other parts of the car park, but they have not addressed my specific point regarding the area where my vehicle was parked and where I maintain there is no visible signage.
3. They continue to rely on ANPR entry and exit times but have not addressed my point that these times do not establish the actual parking period. The evidence does not identify when the vehicle was parked in a bay, only when it entered and exited the site.
4. They have not properly addressed the issue of grace periods and the distinction between time spent driving around looking for a space, time spent parked, and time spent queuing to leave the site. This was a busy Bank Holiday period and there was congestion within the car park and at the exit. The ANPR times include these periods, which are not the same as the actual period of parking.
5. I do not believe they have fully addressed my concerns regarding compliance of the PCN.
Before I submit my POPLA comments, I would be grateful for any advice on:
• Which points are strongest to focus on;
• Whether there are any weaknesses or omissions in the operator's evidence;
• Whether the signage evidence provided is sufficient to rebut my appeal points;
• Any specific wording I should use in my POPLA comments.
I also converted all 38 pages of the pack from Europarks into images and uploaded them on IBB, here are the links:
https://ibb.co/HTGBKz0p
https://ibb.co/yBQNkryW
https://ibb.co/P7FFZXW
https://ibb.co/r2d2zpBC
https://ibb.co/ZRkjHNkD
https://ibb.co/fdckzLbW
https://ibb.co/GvzZFjvN
https://ibb.co/wFv26kJB
https://ibb.co/bgHbRfND
https://ibb.co/Knmr0X2
https://ibb.co/JFc0D2j4
https://ibb.co/ywjQV1Y
https://ibb.co/BHHjVTdF
https://ibb.co/qLtrbWZN
https://ibb.co/4wLVRnRb
https://ibb.co/S4Fs94mB
https://ibb.co/TBFMzyvF
https://ibb.co/nMTX2rYQ
https://ibb.co/9m3Fz0Dk
https://ibb.co/2YCPnN71
https://ibb.co/0prWTyTb
https://ibb.co/cSWQZKJB
https://ibb.co/nsTMMfkL
https://ibb.co/bRm0vP2D
https://ibb.co/JFGXwmhH
https://ibb.co/whr11mQK
https://ibb.co/tTXCXjQv
https://ibb.co/QFZHRCpx
https://ibb.co/0VRqwhZ8
https://ibb.co/Ng4nJbbF
https://ibb.co/hRyCwM2c
https://ibb.co/s9xdx3my
https://ibb.co/KzVQz8Lj
https://ibb.co/MkdSbGmF
https://ibb.co/Lzqkwtk4
https://ibb.co/TBrBHZm5
https://ibb.co/SXfS5BWC
https://ibb.co/h562kr8
-
Euro Car Parks POPLA Appeal
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question and, since the driver is not known to the operator, I will be making my representations purely as keeper.
I understand that, under 'POPLA Rules', I must set out my appeal points and the parking operator must rebut them?
Non compliance with PoFA 2012.
The parking operators NtK fails to comply with PoFA and, as a result, liability cannot be passed from driver to keeper.
In particular, the NtK fails to satisfy the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii).
This non compliance is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
Paragraph 9(2)(e), 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) sets out 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—
(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;
So, in order to establish compliance, we must examine the operators NtK.
An examination of the legislation surrounding 9(2)(e) reveals that compliance is achieved by the setting out of the statutory wording immediately followed by a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or 'nominate another driver'.
So, to make this really easy, in the first instance, we are looking for the specific statutory wording set out in 9(2)(e) itself.
The legislation specifies that 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"
An examination of the operators NtK reveals that the statutory wording is not present.
This is immediately fatal to the operators reliance on PoFA.
However, to demonstrate my appeal point further, the NtK is then required to present a two limbed 'invitation to the keeper' which 'invites the keeper' to either 'pay the unpaid parking charges' or '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'
Please again note the exact wording of the statute;
That 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— blah blah blah
I have capitalised the word AND for good reason since the word AND demonstrates that compliance is only achieved if the operator is able to demonstrate that both legs of the AND logic have been satisfied.
Please note (and I apologise for sounding like a Junior School Teacher) that a 'warning to the keeper' is not 'an invitation to the keeper' - The words 'warn' and 'invite' have very different meanings and it is important that the correct wording is understood and applied when examining the NtK since other terms of the legislation require that 'a warning' be set out on the NtK - I understand that some POPLA assessors have become confused on this issue in the past and have inadvertently applied the reversed meanings - to be clear, a warning is not an invite.
So, back to the two limbed invitation to the keeper - when the NtK is examined the two limbed invitation is not present.
Nor is there an 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - this is also the specific requirement of 9(2)(e)(i).
So, as I am sure you can see, there are multiple compliance issues on the operators NtK.
So,
APPEAL POINT ONE - That the operators NtK does not contain the legally required mandatory wording required by 9(2)(e), namely; "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - I therefore ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the relevant NTK, to the POPLA Assessor, with an orange rectangle around the wording, "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver" - for total clarity, please do not include any other notations on the provided NtK - just the orange rectangle.
APPEAL POINT TWO - That, subsequent to the statutory wording required by 9(2)(e), the operators NtK does not set out the mandatory two legged invitation to the keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges or nominate another driver - Once again, I ask the operator to specifically rebut this appeal point by supplying a copy of the NtK which clearly sets out, in an orange rectangle, the two legged legal invitation which the legislation requires in order to be compliant.
APPEAL POINT THREE - That, in accordance with 9(2)(e) and subsequently 9(2)(e)(i), the NtK must 'invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - Once I again I ask the operator to prove that the NtK complies with this requirement - please demonstrate the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' - Please do not confuse this 'invitation' with any 'warning to keeper' contained in the requirements of 9(2)(f).
If both the Parking Operator and the POPLA Assessor could use my numbered points then this would be very useful and should ensure that all appeal points are correctly addressed.
Best wishes,
xxxxx xxxxxxx
-
Hello,
Update on this case. I have now received the rejection letter from ECP following my initial appeal and they have provided a POPLA code. I am attaching the rejection letter (with address and number plate redacted). Hope you can see the letter through the link here:
https://ibb.co/XxmQcWCx
I would really appreciate it if someone experienced could comment on whether the points raised in my draft would be suitable for a POPLA appeal, whether anything important is missing, or if there is anything that could strengthen my chances. And if the format is also suitable.
Thank you very much
*******
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:
1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the car park.
2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any calculation of a parking period.
3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces) near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.
4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent), including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery
In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.
-
Thank you @InterCity125, would it be ok to consider this draft for POPLA, I want to make sure that I raise relevant points from the outset. Thank you
-
ECP will not uphold the appeal but there is a better chance with POPLA since ECP PCNs are not PoFA compliant.
-
Quick update, the keeper went back to M&S and asked again about cancelling, but was told they can’t cancel as it’s managed separately. So looks like the only option now is to proceed with an appeal.
Draft appeal below, any obvious issues before submitting, please?
Also, one more thing that came up when speaking to the store staff, they mentioned that the land is actually owned by a church, not M&S, which is why they said they couldn’t get involved. However, the signage on site says it’s managed on behalf of M&S.
Would that kind of inconsistency be worth raising in terms of landowner authority, i.e. asking Euro Car Parks to prove they have the right to operate and issue charges there? Or is that unlikely to add much in this case?
***
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice.
The charge is disputed on the following grounds:
1. No evidence of the required “period of parking”
The Notice to Keeper does not comply with the requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the period of parking.
The notice relies solely on ANPR images showing entry and exit times. These do not represent the period of parking, as they include time spent entering, locating a space, and exiting the car park.
2. Failure to account for time not spent parked (grace periods and congestion)
The recorded duration includes time spent:
- locating a parking space in a busy car park, and
- queuing to exit due to congestion and a one-way system with traffic lights
This is not parking time and must not be included in any calculation of a parking period.
3. Inadequate signage in the area where the vehicle was parked
The vehicle was parked in a small bay (approximately 6 spaces) near the exit where there was no visible signage at all.
Signage in other parts of the car park does not sufficiently bring the terms and conditions to the attention of drivers parking in this specific area.
As such, no clear contract could have been formed.
4. Non-compliance with Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper appears not to fully comply with the mandatory wording and requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the requirement to clearly and properly set out the conditions under which keeper liability may apply.
As such, the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
5. No evidence of landowner authority
The operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges at this site.
There appears to be inconsistency regarding the land ownership and management arrangements. Signage suggests the site is managed on behalf of Marks & Spencer, while it has been indicated that the land may be owned by a third party.
The operator is required to demonstrate that it has a valid and current contract with the landowner (or authorised agent), including the authority to:
- issue parking charge notices, and
- pursue them to recovery
In the absence of such evidence, the charge is invalid.
***
Thank you very much once again.
-
it does sound like the store staff just didn’t want to get involved.
I might try again with someone else at a quieter time. After reading some similar cases on here, the point about the NtK potentially missing important bits is very valuable. Thanks for pointing it out @RichardW.
-
The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and is privately managed, so they were unable to help.
Yet the signage says it is managed on behalf of M&S!
-
Hi, thank you very much for your advice. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
Just to clarify a couple of points:
The keeper did contact M&S to see if they could help cancelling the charge, but they advised that it is not their car park and is privately managed, so they were unable to help.
Regarding the layout, the bay where the driver parked is actually just before the exit. What is quite unusual is that all the signage appears to be positioned on the opposite side of that bay. On the side where the vehicle was parked, there are no visible signs at all, despite there being plenty of space for them. It does feel somewhat disconnected from the rest of the car park in that sense. I take your point about signage being present elsewhere, though.
Also, thank you for mentioning the wording point on the notice. Looking at it more closely, it seems to include some elements of the requirements under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, but the wording appears somewhat fragmented and spread out rather than set out clearly in one place. Would it be correct to understand that this part needs to meet a fairly strict standard in terms of how the “invitation” is presented?
Thank you very much again for your help.
-
You could appeal on the basis that you were unable to leave due to traffic congestion - they will probably reject, but it puts them on notice. Make sure you appeal as keeper only, and refer to the driver in the 3rd person. The PCN is missing the invitation to pay or name the driver which is a point for POPLA or the small claims court if it goes that far. The signage may be a point for POPLA as well - it looks like you parked in the small bay on the right of the entrance - if there are no signs as you enter, and turn into this area, then you could argue for inadequate signage as well - but this will not hold much water if you drove around the carpark 3 times first, past all the other signs, and then entered the store passing the sign at the door (there is one shown on Street View, but it refers to different terms)!
This appears to be an M&S owned car park, so, assuming you were a customer, you should also get on to them and ask them to get it cancelled.
-
Hello,
Can anybody advise on this parking charge notice from Euro Car Parks please, is this worth appealing?
The registered keeper has received a Parking Charge Notice from Euro Car Parks relating to a stay at an M&S car park in Beckenham. https://maps.app.goo.gl/WWUkitS3TRQ2GaYx8
Car park limit: 90 minutes
ANPR recorded stay: 1 hour 43 minutes (entry 13:15:32, exit 14:58:24), with ANPR photos of the vehicle number plate on entry/exit
Date of event: 6 April 2026 (Bank Holiday Monday)
PCN issued: 13 April 2026
£85 charge, reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days
The driver entered the car park and, due to it being a busy bank holiday, it took some time to find a space.
Signage is present at the entrance, near the shop entrance, and in parts of the main car park. However, the driver eventually parked in a smaller bay (approx. 6 spaces) on the opposite side where there were no visible signs at all (photos available).
On leaving, there was congestion: a one-way exit with no alternative routes, and a queue of cars waiting at traffic lights with a long cycle. This caused delays exiting the site.
The Notice to Keeper is dated 13 April but was only received on 20 April, so a week of the reduced payment period has already passed.
Any guidance on the best approach and likelihood of success would be much appreciated. Is it worth appealing to Euro Car Parks first (and then to POPLA if rejected)?
Many thanks in advance.
photos uploaded on ibb, links here:
https://ibb.co/Cptrk593
https://ibb.co/3549mbCH
https://ibb.co/gFTP259r
https://ibb.co/LDB03Tym
https://ibb.co/M5Dyyf6P
https://ibb.co/cc2x594W
https://ibb.co/MyV5sv57
https://ibb.co/xKKWcMtL
https://ibb.co/WNSjTyr1
https://ibb.co/5hXF0vmJ
https://ibb.co/S433zzND
https://ibb.co/k2C7MH8b
https://ibb.co/d0WqMQKF
https://ibb.co/V0gnX0qj
https://ibb.co/mCh7tP4g
https://ibb.co/sJ1wF0CJ