Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: StfuECP on April 16, 2025, 06:17:57 pm

Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: DWMB2 on June 01, 2026, 12:19:11 pm: Anecdotally we see more Moorside cases actually go to a hearing than we do DCB Legal ones.

My advice is always to proceed on the assumption you'll have to go to court, and if they do discontinue beforehand, great.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 12:16:03 pm: No worries, thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 12:12:32 pm: Quote from: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 12:03:51 pm
Thanks. Does it matter that the solicitors in this case are DCB Legal though? Not Moorside.

DCB Legal and Moorside operate using the same business model.

Sorry about the confusion.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: jfollows on June 01, 2026, 12:06:03 pm: Quote from: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 12:03:51 pm
Thanks. Does it matter that the solicitors in this case are DCB Legal though? Not Moorside.
No, it’s better, because DCB Legal almost always discontinue in the face of a defended claim before they’re required to pay the court fee.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 12:03:51 pm: Thanks. Does it matter that the solicitors in this case are DCB Legal though? Not Moorside.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 11:05:57 am: Yes.

But there's a bit to happen before that.

As I mentioned before, Moorside would have been hoping that you didn't bother entering a defence so they could claim a default judgement.

We estimate that 80% - 90% of parking claims go un-defended (or get settled before Court) so it's a statistically beneficial business model for them and this is the only reason they exist.

Moorside are not set up to actually go through with the vast majority of these cases - in simple terms they are serial litigators who are only interested in the numbers game.

This is now a defended claim so you just created a mountain of 'paperwork' for them.

They will probably carry on with the game for a while and then discontinue.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 10:18:58 am: Quote from: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 08:50:08 am
No.

Just the defence.

Don't overthink this.

That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.

That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.

That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.

That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.

That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.

That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.

Thanks. Appreciate the help. These things feel massively confusing!

Defence submitted. Should I expect the N180DQ via email next?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 08:50:08 am: No.

Just the defence.

Don't overthink this.

That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.

That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.

That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.

That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.

That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.

That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 08:48:02 am: Quote from: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 08:44:53 am
I'd personally leave that out for the moment.

You will still have the chance to submit a witness statement if the matter progresses.

A defence which is short and to the point makes it clear that you know where you really stand.

This is very unlikely to progress to a hearing.

You are entering a defence purely to avoid a default judgement.

Thanks.

Would you include photos of signage and attatch the NtK at this stage?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on June 01, 2026, 08:44:53 am: I'd personally leave that out for the moment.

You will still have the chance to submit a witness statement if the matter progresses.

A defence which is short and to the point makes it clear that you know where you really stand.

This is very unlikely to progress to a hearing.

You are entering a defence purely to avoid a default judgement.

I'd personally use the defence exactly as I posted previously.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 01, 2026, 07:34:05 am: Hi everyone, I need to submit this today or I miss my chance to defend.

Would you leave in the part where I've explained what happened to the driver on the day?

Thanks
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 25, 2026, 08:56:06 am: Quote from: InterCity125 on May 25, 2026, 07:41:21 am
I would start with the non compliant PoFA element since this immediately disqualifies the claim.

Something along the lines of;

That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.

That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.

That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.

That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.

That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.

That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.

That's great, thanks.

So would you remove the part where I give an explanation as to what actually happened on the day with regards to the driver?

And then just go on to highlight my original reply to ECP which covers the other matters?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on May 25, 2026, 07:41:21 am: I would start with the non compliant PoFA element since this immediately disqualifies the claim.

Something along the lines of;

That I am the named defendant and I deny any liability in this matter.

That the vehicle driver is not known to the Claimant and there is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver.

That the Claimant has provided no evidence as to who the driver was.

That the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)(PoFA) and as such liability cannot be transferred myself.

That, in particular, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) - the mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice required by the paragraph is not present on the Claimant's NtK and, as such, total compliance is not achieved.

That this means that there is no legal route to me being liable for the alleged debt.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 24, 2026, 11:06:52 pm: Quote from: jfollows on May 24, 2026, 08:05:29 am
You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”

Appreciate it, but I've already amended that on my draft copy offline. I reposted the original defence from my previous post because I was hoping for a bit more in-depth advice beyond spell checking. But perhaps my defence is already fine! Thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 24, 2026, 11:05:28 pm: Quote from: InterCity125 on May 24, 2026, 07:47:35 am
ECP NtKs fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) full stop - I wouldn't specifically mention 9(2)(e)(i) - just say 9(2)(e).

That's really helpful, thanks. Is there anything else you'd change? Or am I overthinking this? Are they going to give up as soon as they receive any reaosnabt defence?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: jfollows on May 24, 2026, 08:05:29 am: You’ve still got “bit PoFA compliant”
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: InterCity125 on May 24, 2026, 07:47:35 am: ECP NtKs fail to comply with paragraph 9(2)(e) full stop - I wouldn't specifically mention 9(2)(e)(i) - just say 9(2)(e).
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 23, 2026, 10:21:48 am: Please could someone cast their eye over the following defence before I submit it online? TIA.

The driver went to view a flat. The landlord told them to park behind building A and said that they were covered by a residents permit. The driver saw the ECP sign but due to how illegible it was and holding the honestly held belief that they were covered by a residents permit parked up, walked round to the flat and when they got no answer called the landlord. Turned out the landlord had given the driver the wrong address. He should have sent the driver to building B which is next door and has it's own car park. The driver left the car park after 14 minutes.

The communications between the landlord and driver were by phone and the landlord is no longer contactable.

An appeal was submitted to the original NtK as follows:

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.

PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with. The NtK did not specifically invite the Keeper to pay the charge.

In big bold writing on the front of the NtK it says that payment is to be made within 28 days of issue. Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP says that the recipient of a notice has 28 days from the date of receipt, not date of issue.

The ECP sign in the car park mentioned is bit PoFA compliant with paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) as they do not adequately bring the charge to the attention of the driver (Ref Beavis case).

I have asked ECP to provide proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. They have failed to do so.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 17, 2026, 08:07:42 pm: Hi,

Apologiesnfor bumping this again, but having not had any advice on the defence I had written I've submitted an AOS to give me more time to get the defence checked.

Is anyone able to have a look over it please? It's just a few replies back. Thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 08, 2026, 03:28:08 pm: Hi everyone,

Could someone please give me any feedback on my defence?

Thanks
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 05, 2026, 12:23:25 pm: Quote from: jfollows on May 05, 2026, 08:49:44 am
You have “bit PoFA compliant”, do you mean “not PoFA compliant”?

Yes
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: jfollows on May 05, 2026, 08:49:44 am: You have “bit PoFA compliant”, do you mean “not PoFA compliant”?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 05, 2026, 08:36:43 am: Good morning, bumping this in the hope someone can have a look over my defence before I submit it online. Thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 02, 2026, 11:23:36 am: Please could someone cast their eye over the following defence before I submit it online? TIA.

The driver went to view a flat. The landlord told them to park behind building A and said that they were covered by a residents permit. The driver saw the ECP sign but due to how illegible it was and holding the honestly held belief that they were covered by a residents permit parked up, walked round to the flat and when they got no answer called the landlord. Turned out the landlord had given the driver the wrong address. He should have sent the driver to building B which is next door and has it's own car park. The driver left the car park after 14 minutes.

The communications between the landlord and driver were by phone and the landlord is no longer contactable.

An appeal was submitted to the original NtK as follows:

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.

PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with. The NtK did not specifically invite the Keeper to pay the charge.

In big bold writing on the front of the NtK it says that payment is to be made within 28 days of issue. Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP says that the recipient of a notice has 28 days from the date of receipt, not date of issue.

The ECP sign in the car park mentioned is bit PoFA compliant with paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) as they do not adequately bring the charge to the attention of the driver (Ref Beavis case).

I have asked ECP to provide proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. They have failed to do so.

I understand having read other threads that I now need to raise my defence via the money claim website. I've found a step by step guide in another thread which I'll use. Following that I'll probably receive an N180 DQ which I'll ignore and then fill out my own N180 DQ and email it to them. Is that correct?

I can't tell you how much all the support and advice on here is appreciated. I started to panic last night but having read the advice I'm staying calm and staying the course. Eff these guys.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 01, 2026, 04:28:09 pm: (https://i.postimg.cc/SYmPf7LV/IMG-20250416-170540.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/SYmPf7LV)

(https://i.postimg.cc/SYmPf7LD/IMG-20250416-170702.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/SYmPf7LD)

(https://i.postimg.cc/ZB8gNDNf/IMG-20250416-170924.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ZB8gNDNf)
Title: Re: LoC and HM Courts Claim Form received (ECP)
Post by: StfuECP on May 01, 2026, 04:23:31 pm: Quote from: jfollows on May 01, 2026, 04:08:46 pm
If you defend, you either need to submit a defence by 18 May, or an Acknowledgement of Service by 18 May and a defence by 1 June.

Know that DCB Legal usually discontinue cases in the face of a defence.

Search the forum for examples.

Who told you you didn’t need to pay? This needs to be part of your defence.

Can you post the original Notice to Keeper also? This can open more avenues to your defence. It’s no longer visible in your other thread.

Please ask moderators to merge the two threads which cover the same incident. I have requested this for you.

Thanks for sorting the merge.

The driver was viewing a flat. The Landlord has told the driver to park in that car park. The driver may no longer have contact details for the landlord.

I'll try and find the original NtK now.

Thanks.
Title: Re: LoC and HM Courts Claim Form received (ECP)
Post by: StfuECP on May 01, 2026, 04:21:39 pm: I replied to the original NtK with an appeal as directed here.

I've not replied to anything since.
Title: Re: LoC and HM Courts Claim Form received (ECP)
Post by: Dave65 on May 01, 2026, 04:11:14 pm: Did you reply to the letter before claim?
Title: Re: LoC and HM Courts Claim Form received (ECP)
Post by: jfollows on May 01, 2026, 04:08:46 pm: If you defend, you either need to submit a defence by 18 May, or an Acknowledgement of Service by 18 May and a defence by 1 June.

Know that DCB Legal usually discontinue cases in the face of a defence.

Search the forum for examples.

Who told you you didn’t need to pay? This needs to be part of your defence.

Can you post the original Notice to Keeper also? This can open more avenues to your defence. It’s no longer visible in your other thread.

Please ask moderators to merge the two threads which cover the same incident. I have requested this for you.
Title: LoC and HM Courts Claim Form received (ECP)
Post by: StfuECP on May 01, 2026, 04:03:28 pm: Original thread here: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ntk-euro-car-parks

TLDR: Euro Car Parks want £100 for parking in their car park for 14 minutes. The driver parked there having been told they were exempt.

Hello, I've now had a LoC and a letter from HM Courts and Tribunals Service. I am sihtting myself if I'm honest and am tempted to just pay the fine, plus interest, plus court costs, which totals nearly three times the original fine. I'm hoping you guys can give me some advice and confidence.

I don't seem to be able to attach images. Below should drop them into this post. If not, a link to the docs is here: https://postimg.cc/gallery/Z6Z4Qhf

(https://i.postimg.cc/62LSZvX4/IMG-20260501-160028.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/62LSZvX4)

(https://i.postimg.cc/CBHt8qg5/IMG-20260501-160032.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/CBHt8qg5)

(https://i.postimg.cc/qhXYK3Tg/IMG-20260501-160043.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/qhXYK3Tg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/hzq6h0HK/IMG-20260501-160051.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/hzq6h0HK)
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 21, 2025, 07:57:31 pm: Thanks for all the advice provided this far. I'll be back.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on June 20, 2025, 06:58:23 pm: You just ignore all the debt recovery letters you are going to receive. Debt collectors are powerless except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Eventually, you will receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). When you do, come back and we will advise further.

No one who follows the advice pays a penny to ECP.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on June 20, 2025, 05:39:27 pm: Hi,.I've just realised the POPLA appeals date passed 10 days ago. Am I completely screwed now? What will their next steps be and what can I do in the meantime?

Thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: H C Andersen on May 14, 2025, 10:26:18 pm: IMO, it is certainly arguable that 9(2)(e)(i) has not been complied with in this case.

As for substantial compliance not being sufficient, IMO case law is against this view. But this shouldn't prevent the keeper arguing the 'invitation' point at POPLA. But if this is done, then IMO the reason for its inclusion and the effect of its omission should be referred to.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on May 14, 2025, 09:23:34 pm: Please stop referring to it as a "fine". A poxy, ex-clamper, unregulated private parking company is not an 'authority' of any kind that can issue "fines" or "penalties".

It is nothing more than a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver. Do not dignify them with the idea that their PCN is a "fine".

As for the failure to "invite" the Keeper to pay the charge, there can be no implied obligation. They either invite the Keeper to pay or they don't. In this case, they don't.

Many operators include something like this to overcome the issue:

Quote
You are now invited to:

(i) Pay the charge; or
(ii) Provide the drivers name and address for service and pass this notice to them.

They have chosen not to do this.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 08:16:25 pm: Okay, I've reread it a few more times and I think I understand now.

They don't invite me to pay it. They say that I'm "liable" if the driver doesn't pay, or say they have a right to "recover" the costs. They don't actually ask me to pay the fine do they?

So this is the crux of their problem and it is this issue that makes it non compliant?

Thanks so much for your help.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on May 14, 2025, 03:52:32 pm: The NtK is addressed to the Keeper. They do not know the identity of the Driver. Where is there an "invitation" (or any synonym of the word) that says the Keeper can just pay the charge?

The note only says the Driver is liable and should pay it. It does not invite the Keeper to pay it, only to tell them who the driver is (which there is no legal obligation to do so) and to pass the notice to the driver.

All the sub-sections of PoFA paragraph 9(2) MUST be complied with for the creditor to be able to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. Partial or even substantial compliance is not enough.

Just as a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant, the Notice cannot be partially or even mostly compliant with PoFA. It is a binary issue. It either is or it isn't PoFA compliant.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 02:13:18 pm: I believe they do comply with 92ei and instruct me to pay if they don't. See attached. Have I misunderstood?

Will look into the signage and land owner issues.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on May 14, 2025, 12:52:40 pm: Is PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) complied with? Does the NtK specifically invite the Keeper to pay the charge? As far as I can see, it only mentions that the driver must pay.

Also, check out the PPSCoP. In big bold writing on the front of the NtK it says that payment is to be made within 28 days of issue. Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP says that the recipient of a notice has 28 days from the date of receipt, not date of issue.

ECP signs are never PoFA compliant with paragraph 2(2) or 2(3) as they do not adequately bring the charge to the attention of the driver. Do a search for examples of the sign in the Beavis case and the ECP sign and you will see the difference in how the £100 chargers is presented.

Also, put ECP to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 12:16:21 pm: Thank you. I've read through Schedule 4 but I'm struggling to understand it and also which parts of it ECP have failed to comply with in their NtK. Are you able to point out the relevant paragraphs please?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: jfollows on May 14, 2025, 11:56:25 am: Schedule 4, to be precise, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 11:50:39 am: So reading these other POPLA appeals, they appear to rely on lack of compliance with paragraph 4 of PoFA 2012. The NtK they sent me reads as though it does comply.

Am I misunderstanding this?
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 11:45:21 am: I've noticed alot of appeals also reference signage, unreasonable charges and land owner issues. Is this something I should include in my appeal? Images of signage attached above.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 14, 2025, 11:41:03 am: Thanks, I'm reading through other POPLA appeals now.

I think I understand that my main arguement is going to be that because the NtK was not fully compliant with PoFA 2012 they cannot hold me, the keeper, liable.

What I'm not sure about is what in their NtK isn't compliant. What have they missed or left out?

Thanks.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on May 13, 2025, 03:16:59 pm: The POPLA code is actually valid until 10th June, so no rush. However, in the meantime you can do a search of the forum for other POPLA appeals and put something together yourself and show it to us before you send anything so that we can advise on whether you need to include, remove or edit anything it it before you send it.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 13, 2025, 02:55:18 pm: Hi, apologies if this isn't best practice, but bumping this in the hopes someone can advise me on the next steps to take with the above.

Thanks for any assistance.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on May 09, 2025, 10:37:48 pm: Hi,

Thanks for your help so far. I've now had a reply as attached. Any advice greatly appreciated.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: DWMB2 on April 16, 2025, 11:42:48 pm: Sorry to hear about the separation.

Keep an eye on your spam folder for ECP's reply. They will reject your appeal. When they do we can advise on a POPLA appeal. If they reject, it'll eventually be passed on to solicitors, who, the vast majority of the time, eventually discontinue the case when it is defended with our support.
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on April 16, 2025, 10:25:50 pm: Oh wow, this is fantastic. I had posted elsewhere and just been told I had no hope and to pay it. I'm currently going through a separation and paying this would have completely broken me. Thank you so much stranger!
Title: Re: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: b789 on April 16, 2025, 07:59:20 pm: 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.
Title: NtK - Euro Car Parks
Post by: StfuECP on April 16, 2025, 06:17:57 pm: Hi,

England.

TLDR: Euro Car Parks want £100 for parking in their car park for 14 minutes. The driver parked there having been told they were exempt.

The driver went to view a flat. The landlord told them to park behind building A and said that they were covered by a residents permit. The driver saw the ECP sign but, having been told they were covered by a residents permit parked up, walked round to the flat and when they got no answer called the landlord. Turned out he'd given the driver the wrong building. He should have sent the driver to building B which is next door and has it's own car park. The driver left the car park after 14 minutes.

What's the best course of action here please?

[attachment deleted by admin]