Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: tigerjohn on August 03, 2026, 05:55:00 pm
-
No - do not make any further representations at this time.
-
Should I respond to this response they made to me?
I am not comfortable to provide my ID details to the company, and thought since they contacted me, they should be able to disclose the information I requested, or what to people here suggest I do.
Thanks.
-
I understand that a SAR is the mechanism for obtaining my data, but given that
I responded to a Final Demand disputing liability and asking how hirer liability had been established, should I simply wait for a formal Letter Before Claim rather than provide further identification at this stage?
-
Usual SAR protocols in order for you to obtain the information required. They have timelines to respond to your request.
-
So I sent in response to their final demand letter:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28 July 2026 headed "Final Demand Before Court Action".
Liability for this charge is denied.
The vehicle is supplied under a hire arrangement. XXX Fleet UK Ltd wrote to me on 8 May 2026 confirming that my details had been provided to you and that the notice would be reissued directly to me.
To date, I have never been served with a Notice to Hirer pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, nor have I received the documents prescribed by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, including a copy of the hire agreement and the statement of liability required to establish liability against the hirer.
Accordingly, prima facie, liability has not been established against the hirer in place of the registered keeper.
If you contend that liability has been validly transferred from the registered keeper to the hirer, please provide:
A copy of the Notice to Hirer.
Copies of all documents prescribed by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including the hire agreement and statement of liability.
Evidence of the date on which XXXX Fleet UK Ltd, as registered keeper, supplied the hirer's details to you.
Evidence that the statutory requirements and time limits set out in Schedule 4 were complied with.
Confirmation that the Notice to Keeper issued to XXXXX Fleet UK Ltd has been cancelled and that you are no longer pursuing the registered keeper, together with copies of the relevant correspondence.
For the avoidance of doubt, liability is denied and the debt is formally disputed. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and nothing in this correspondence should be taken as such an admission.
This was the reply I received, note not one single question was answered:
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
If you require a copy of your Parking Charge Notice and related correspondence, you will need to submit a Subject Access Request to our Data Protection Officer (DPO).
Please provide a copy of your ID and proof of address. Once the required documents are received, the information will be provided to you.
Requested documents should be sent to: dpo@europarkingservices.com
Kind regards,
How should i proceed from this
-
Thanks for everyone's response.
So would something like this be better in response? Or this asking for to much information?
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28 July 2026 headed "Final Demand Before Court Action".
Liability is denied.
I have never been served with a Notice to Hirer pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and, prima facie, cannot therefore be held liable as hirer in place of the registered keeper.
If you contend that such a notice was issued, please provide:
A copy of the Notice to Hirer.
Copies of all documents required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4, including the hire agreement and statement of liability.
Evidence that the statutory time limits were complied with.
Evidence of the date on which the hirer's details were supplied to you.
Confirmation that the claim against the registered keeper has been cancelled, together with a copy of the relevant correspondence.
For the avoidance of doubt, liability is denied and the debt is formally disputed. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver"
-
IMO, this is purely procedural. Don't start explaining substantive events, you'll just encourage them.
You have not received a Notice to Hirer pursuant to para. 14 of POFA, therefore prima facie you may not be held liable in lieu of the registered keeper.
In the event that such a notice was issued, you invite them to provide a copy and the prescribed accompanying documents. In addition, as they are prevented from issuing such a notice unless their claim against the registered keeper has been cancelled, you also require a copy of their letter to **** confirming cancellation of their Notice to Keeper in order to test that the creditor is not engaged in attempting double recovery.
-
You might as well include all of it. Chances are they will just ignore it anyway!
It's likely to develop:
LOC from Gladstones
Claim form from court
You submit defence
They say they will continue
Both sides submit directions questionnaire
Mediation call takes place where you offer £0 and they say they will continue
Court makes an order to transfer to small claims track and directs both sides to submit witness statements, and for Claimant to pay the fee by a certain date
At or about the fee date, Gladstones don't pay and discontinue the claim
Nothing guaranteed of course! They may push all the way to a hearing, but you have a strong case.
This is what I plan to respond to the letter they sent me. Does this seem ok?
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28 July 2026 headed "Final Demand Before Court Action".
Liability for this charge is denied.
This vehicle is supplied under a hire arrangement. XXX Fleet wrote to me on 8 May 2026 confirming that liability had been transferred and stating that the notice would be reissued directly to me.
To date, I have never been served with a Notice to Hirer accompanied by the documents required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including:
a copy of the hire agreement;
the statement of liability provided by the vehicle hire company; and
the documents required in order to establish hirer liability.
Accordingly, liability has not been established against the hirer unless and until you can demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Please therefore provide evidence:
Of the date on which XXX Fleet transferred the hirer's details to you.
Of the date on which any Notice to Hirer was issued.
That all documents required by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 accompanied that notice.
That the statutory time limits were complied with.
Furthermore, your appeal rejection alleges that the driver was "observed walking off site". However, the Parking Charge Notice itself contains only images of the vehicle entering and leaving the site and provides no evidence demonstrating that the driver left the relevant premises.
In addition, the signage relied upon does not clearly define the boundaries of the premises or identify which adjacent businesses are excluded from using the parking spaces. The parking bays, neighbouring buildings and seating area appear physically connected, without any clear demarcation showing where the premises begin or end.
Please also provide:
Copies of all CCTV footage, photographs and video evidence relied upon.
The evidence said to demonstrate that the driver left the premises.
A site plan identifying the precise boundaries of the land to which the parking terms apply.
Evidence showing how those boundaries are clearly communicated to motorists.
Photographs of all signage relied upon.
Evidence of landowner authority permitting enforcement at this location.
For the avoidance of doubt, liability is denied and the debt is formally disputed. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver."
-
There was no POPLA appeal. Euro Parking offered an appeal through the IAS, which I chose not to pursue because of concerns regarding its independence and success rates. Based on research I made online.
The only appeal submitted was directly to Euro Parking, which was rejected.
-
You might as well include all of it. Chances are they will just ignore it anyway!
It's likely to develop:
LOC from Gladstones
Claim form from court
You submit defence
They say they will continue
Both sides submit directions questionnaire
Mediation call takes place where you offer £0 and they say they will continue
Court makes an order to transfer to small claims track and directs both sides to submit witness statements, and for Claimant to pay the fee by a certain date
At or about the fee date, Gladstones don't pay and discontinue the claim
Nothing guaranteed of course! They may push all the way to a hearing, but you have a strong case.
-
Could you please post up the POPLA outcome?
-
Thanks again, one more thing.
If hirer liability has not been established, should my response to the final demand focus primarily on the POFA failure, or should I continue to argue the signage and boundary issues as secondary points?
After replying to this final demand letter what should I expect them to be doing?
-
Does that mean hirer liability has not been established under Schedule 4?
Basically, yes.
-
Thanks for your response.
The only documents I have personally received from Euro Parking are the reminder notice, the appeal rejection and the final demand letter. I have never received a copy of the hire agreement or the liability statement from the leasing company.
Does that mean hirer liability has not been established under Schedule 4?
-
That's a solid appeal - I would just re-send it in response to the letter, starting out with that you deny liability, and expanding that since you never received the NTH with the associated docs as required they have failed to establish hirer liability.
-
Any communication made, has been that I am hirer / keeper. Driver has not been identified by me.
This is the appeal I made:
"I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice as the hirer of the vehicle.
The vehicle remained on site for only a very brief period while the driver visited the immediately adjacent bakery premises. From the perspective of a reasonable visitor, the premises and surrounding customer areas appear physically connected and no clear site boundary was identifiable.
The signage relied upon does not prominently or clearly communicate that customers of the adjacent bakery are prohibited from parking, nor does it define any visible boundary between the businesses. The wording is vague and insufficiently clear for a driver entering the site for a short customer visit.
The duration involved was approximately 8 minutes only, entirely consistent with a brief genuine customer visit and/or a reasonable consideration period while assessing the premises and signage.
The photographic evidence supplied does not demonstrate any clearly marked site boundary being crossed, nor does it establish that the driver intentionally breached any clearly communicated parking restriction.
In addition, this vehicle is supplied through a lease/hire arrangement via XXXXLtd. Please therefore provide strict proof that all requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relating to hire/lease vehicles have been fully complied with, including all mandatory documents and prescribed timelines required to transfer liability to the hirer.
Unless full compliance with POFA Schedule 4 has been achieved, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the hirer.
In light of:
the unclear and ambiguous site layout,
the absence of any clearly defined boundary,
the unclear signage wording,
the extremely short duration,
the genuine customer nature of the visit,
and the potential non-compliance with POFA requirements for hire vehicles,
I request that this Parking Charge Notice is cancelled.
Should you reject this appeal, please provide:
full evidence of POFA Schedule 4 compliance for hire vehicles,
copies of all documents served and dates issued,
a full site map identifying the exact enforced boundary,
evidence showing how that boundary is clearly communicated to motorists,
photographs showing all signage relied upon,
and evidence of landowner authority.
Yours faithfully
-
That's not an actual letter of claim - that will come from Gladstones, and give 30 days to pay.
What exactly did you say in your appeal? Without a compliant notice to hirer (which they never send) there is no route to hirer liability - but, and it's a big but, if you let the cat out of the bag about the driver's ID (even accidentally by saying I parked or similar) then you have lost this.
-
Have you ever had a notice in your name?
Post up the latest letter you have received, sounds like it's might just be a tree shaking exercise.
Where on the sign does it say you must stay on site?!?
This is the letter I received today. It is the second letter i have received so far in this process.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqnYBwX5/Final-demand-letter1.jpg)
-
I have not received any notice in my name.
I only received a Reminder Notice in my name, and than now Final Demand before court action.
When the leasing company contacted me, I did make an appeal, but it was declined. I did this based on the leasing company forwarding me the documents sent to them. They did expect that a PCN would be reissued to me after transfer of liability, but never got any reissued.
This was the response to my appeal. I stopped communication after this. I am considering if I should reply to this letter or not.
Here is a copy of appeal response:
"Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
After reviewing the details of your appeal and the evidence held on file, we must advise that your appeal
has been unsuccessful.
As evidence by the PCN you were observed walking off site while your vehicle parked there.
It is the motorists responsibility to remain within the premises while their vehicle is parked. Once they
have completed their visit or purchase, they must leave the site immediately. Vehicles may not be left on
the premises while the driver/passenger goes elsewhere.
Note, there is a consideration period but if the driver has left the vehicle unattended and has gone
elsewhere then they are no longer considering the terms and conditions of parking enforcement on the
premises.
The Landowner authority is not public information and this does not have to be disclosed. The IAS has
access to this should the appeal go to this stage.
Details of how to submit an appeal can be found at:
www.theias.org
As the discounted settlement period has lapsed, you are now required to pay £100.
We are satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and that sufficient attention was
brought to the driver with regards to the terms and conditions enforced. In light of the aforementioned,
your appeal is declined.
If you wish to appeal this decision further, you may refer your case to the Independent Appeals Service
(IAS), which is operated by the International Parking Community (IPC)."
(https://postimg.cc/t1QD5Q7K)(https://i.postimg.cc/W4tKssV1/PCN.jpg)
-
Have you ever had a notice in your name?
Post up the latest letter you have received, sounds like it's might just be a tree shaking exercise.
Where on the sign does it say you must stay on site?!?
-
I would appreciate some advice regarding a Euro Parking Services parking charge that has now reached the "Final Demand Before Court Action" stage.
Private parking charge issued in April 2026.
Vehicle is leased through a fleet company.
The original notice was sent to the leasing company, which transferred liability to me as hirer.
The first correspondence I personally received was a reminder notice rather than a fresh PCN addressed to the hirer.
The alleged contravention was "Parking for patrons whilst on the premises only".
The vehicle was parked for only 8 minutes and 14 seconds.
Euro Parking claims that the driver "walked off site".
Appeal history, due to the leasing company transferring liability, it was outside the "discounted" period.
I appealed without identifying the driver.
Euro Parking rejected the appeal and stated that the driver had been observed leaving the site.
They refused to provide details of the landowner authority, saying that it was not public information.
The rejection letter also states that motorists must remain on the premises while parked and leave immediately after completing their purchase.
Site layout:
The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor seating area.
There are no obvious physical boundaries, fences or markings showing where the premises begin or end.
The signage does not appear to define the site boundaries.
It is unclear whether the bakery and parking area are under the same ownership.
The PCN only shows CCTV images of the vehicle entering and leaving.
The operator alleges that CCTV/video shows the driver leaving the premises.
The driver believed they were using parking associated with the nearby bakery.
The parking spaces are directly adjacent to a bakery and outdoor seating area, with no obvious physical boundary, fencing or markings separating the different businesses.
The sign prominently advertises "Pay to park with your phone" and "£1 per hour" weekend parking, which gives the impression that the car park is open to the public.
The weekday restriction ("Monday to Friday parking is restricted to authorized staff only") appears in much smaller text and is far less prominent.
The sign does not clearly explain which businesses are covered by the parking restrictions or whether customers of the adjacent bakery are prohibited from parking there.
The sign refers to remaining "on the premises", but does not define where the premises begin or end.
There is no obvious indication that walking into the neighboring bakery would be considered "leaving the premises".
At the time, the driver genuinely believed that the parking spaces were connected to the nearby bakery because of the layout and the wording of the sign.
Could a reasonable motorist be expected to understand from this sign that visiting the bakery would amount to leaving the premises, given the layout and prominence of the weekend public parking information?
I have now received a "Final Demand Before Court Action" demanding £160.
I have not admitted to being the driver.
For a hire vehicle, were the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA complied with?
Should a fresh notice have been served on the hirer?
Must the operator prove exactly where the driver went and where the site boundary is?
Is the signage sufficient if the boundaries are unclear?
What should my response to the pre-action letter contain?
(https://i.postimg.cc/dJs1rgVv/Parkingarea.jpg?dl=1)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvTj9H7p/parkingsign.jpg)