Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Riz101 on May 17, 2026, 06:05:37 pm
-
Response posted now, fingers crossed !
-
Many thanks!
I will respond with the exact wording in your post.
Regards
R
-
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).
-
You need to make it accessible.
Sharing multiple links in case one doesn't work, please check again, thanks
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FYKE3rnxWUez-eam4Pwjfk_Y2IdnaLBR/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FYKE3rnxWUez-eam4Pwjfk_Y2IdnaLBR/view
-
You need to make it accessible.
-
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.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FYKE3rnxWUez-eam4Pwjfk_Y2IdnaLBR/view?usp=drive_link
-
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?
-
Hi,
I have received an email below from POPLA, do I need to respond? as deadline is in 7 days
Your parking charge appeal against Euro Car Parks - EW.
Euro Car Parks - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here
Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is not currently available on your account please check back later before contacting us.
You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Euro Car Parks - EW.
Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Euro Car Parks - EW such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330 1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.
After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option for appeal.
Yours sincerely
POPLA Team
-
Thank you, I have submitted the wording as suggested in the appeal to POPLA.
kind regards
-
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
-
Hi, I received the rejection the next day. Below are the pictures of the pdf received.
https://ibb.co/F46hHfmP
https://ibb.co/Q7VVYQcX
https://ibb.co/cpwMpK6
https://ibb.co/Z67RNFX6
-
Thanks, I have submitted the appeal yesterday. Waiting for rejection from now on.
I will come back for the great help that is provided here once I receive rejection.
Many thanks! Keep up the fantastic work guys much appreaciated.
-
Well it`s only at the first stage, so be it.
ECP will almost reject anyway, but you are showing you are not a push over.
-
Apologies, I'm being extra careful.
I cannot fully paste the text, last line is cutting off due to text limit on ECP appeal page, is it ok to miss the last sentence? I will completely drop it if OK?
https://ibb.co/HfDfqvBw
-
Thank you very much for the suggestion, I will respond as suggested.
Many thanks!
-
By b789
ECP reply by b789 November 05 2025
ECP NtKs are never fully compliant with PoFA. They all fail PoFA para 9(2)(e)(i). Whilst ECP would not agree and most POPLA assessors are too intellectually malnourished or plainly moronic to understand, you still go through the motions.
What I can assure you of, with greater than 99.9% certainly, is that if you follow the advice, you will not have to pay a penny to ECP.
For now, simply appeal to ECP. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. ECP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. ECP have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
When that is rejected, you will have 33 days to make a POPLA appeal, which for this operator would include the following point, amongst the others:
Quote
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.
-
The code of practice on the BPA says any charge should be predominately displayed, this is not.
Also, from a post by a previous poster b789 says that ECP will almost discontinue their claim before they have to pay the court fee.
Have a search on the search box for posts "ECP"
-
Please, any thoughts on this will be appreciated. Thanks!
-
There must be other signage within the car park, warning of the charge if the terms are not met (such as £100).
Hi,
Yes there is inside as well, see link below, thanks.
https://ibb.co/yn1qzy74
I will attach it in the original post.
Regards
-
There must be other signage within the car park, warning of the charge if the terms are not met (such as £100).
-
Any comment is appreciated, thanks!
-
Dear all,
I'd appreciate advice on a Notice to Keeper received from Euro Car Parks. I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
Summary of events:
On 18/04/2026, the driver entered the Horse & Barge car park (Duke Street, Thorn Lane, Reading, RG1 2AG) at 13:37 per the ANPR entry time on the PCN.
The driver remained in the vehicle for a period after arrival. When the driver attempted to pay via the Pay by Phone app, internet connectivity issues delayed the transaction although no proof is present. The driver eventually started a paid Pay by Phone session at 14:17 for £5.70 (Receipt available), with the session set to expire at 18:00.
The vehicle exited the car park at 18:10:00 per the ANPR exit time — 10 minutes after the paid session expired.
PCN details:
Date of Event: 18/04/2026
Date Issued: 23/04/2026 (5 days after event)
Contravention stated on PCN: "The vehicle was parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction"
Entry: 13:37 / Exit: 18:10:00 / Time in car park: 4h 33m
Charge: £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, by 07/05/2026)
Issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Operator is a BPA Approved Operator
No comms held with Euro Car Parks till date.
Points I'd like advice on:
The stated contravention is "parked without a valid Pay by Phone transaction", however a valid Pay by Phone transaction was made (£5.70, session 14:17–18:00). A receipt from the Pay by Phone app is available. Does the misstatement of the contravention itself give grounds to challenge? I understand the parking ticket started later than entry time.
The period between ANPR entry (13:37) and start of paid session (14:17) is approximately 39 minutes. Is this defensible in the appeal considering the failed attempts earlier by the driver, although no proof?
Any POFA Schedule 4 compliance issues to flag on the wording of the NTK?
The paid session expired at 18:00 and the vehicle exited at 18:10:00 — exactly 10 minutes after expiry. Under the BPA Code of Practice, a minimum grace period is required after the paid period ends before a PCN can be issued. Is the overstay defensible on this basis?
No appeal has been submitted yet. PCN images, payment receipt and signage photos links are given below.
What is the best course of action at this stage?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
PCN Front: https://ibb.co/zVYw3ZPg
PCN Back: https://ibb.co/Q7KW6SQC
Parking payment receipt: https://ibb.co/zTsgPX93
Notice images at the parking:
https://ibb.co/YF769TX0
https://ibb.co/pjDXzHff