I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When an appeal comes to POPLA the burden of proof begins with the parking operator to evidence that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued correctly. The parking operator has issued the PCN to the appellant because the P&D/permit purchased did not cover the date and time of parking. The appellant quotes the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (The Code) Section 5.1(a) and says the Consideration Period was inadequate for the circumstances. They say in this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car. They say due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine. They say at this point, the Consideration Period ended and the parking period began. The also point out that the purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20." The appeal reasons have led me to consider The Code which sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 5.1 states that parking operators must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration, subject to the requirements set out in Annex B to allow a driver time to decide whether or not to park. In this case, Annex B provides a consideration period of 5 minutes. Whilst I acknowledge that Section 5.1 says the operator should take into account the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs and the impact of the volume of traffic within the controlled land. I wish to point out that the parking period is defined in Section 2.24 of the Code as the length of time that a vehicle remains on controlled land, which includes the consideration period. Additionally, Annex B makes it clear that the Consideration period is not a free period of parking. However, the appellant has explained that they believed the parking period commenced at the time of payment and whilst the signage refers to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras it does not explain that the parking period is calculated from the time they enter and exit the site. Therefore, I consider that it is reasonable that the appellant believed that their parking time began at 12:20, at the time they paid for their parking and that the period prior to this was a consideration period. Section 5.2 of the Single Code of Practice requires a parking operator to allow a grace period in addition to the parking period. The Code advises that grace periods do not apply other than where a driver has parked in compliance with the terms and conditions of the area. In accordance with Annex B the grace period at this site is 10 minutes. The appellant has exited the site at 15:28 which was 3 hours 8 minutes after paying for their stay, therefore I consider the appellant left the site within the grace period and complied with the parking contract they entered. As I have determined the first 14-minutes of the time spent on site was a consideration period, I cannot conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly when factoring this in to my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. The appellant has raised other grounds in their appeal, but as I am allowing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to address these.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle shown in this PCN received from Euro Car Parks on 26 July 2025. I dispute any and all liability for this parking charge, and appeal it in full.
The following non-compliance on the part of the car park operator in issuing the NtK is noted:
- Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not meet PoFA requirements. The NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, so the keeper of the vehicle liable cannot be held liable for the charge. PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) states “The notice must— (e) 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.” This is a mandatory requirement: the NtK must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the charge if the driver is not identified. The PCN does not do this.
Partial or even substantial compliance with PoFA 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. The NtK can only hold the driver liable.- Consideration Period inadequate for the circumstances - As per Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) 5.1(a), a consideration period of "the time required for a driver to identify and access a parking bay appropriate to their needs" should be allowed. Upon entering the car park at 12:06 (as per CCTV), the driver could not initially find any available spaces, and was one of a number of queuing cars awaiting a space. As spaces became available, queued cars were moving into them.
PPSCoP 5.1(a) notes the following should be considered: "For example, a driver seeking a Blue Badge parking bay or a parent and child parking bay, waiting for another vehicle to vacate a bay, returning to the vehicle to check the VRM, queuing at a payment machine, etc". In this case, a parent and child space was desired and when a family was seen returning to their car to depart, the driver waited to park in this space as there was a baby in the car.
Due to the busyness of the car park, and parking in a space appropriate to needs, the driver parked the car just before 12:20, and a ticket was immediately purchased from the machine.- Misleading and inaccurate information - The purchased ticket stated clearly in a large bold font that it was valid until "15:20". There was no adequate signage making it clear that the times printed on tickets were inaccurate and instead car park entry times (possibly with an unknown and undisclosed consideration period) would be used.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, contractual terms must be transparent and fair. Where signage forms the basis of a contract, any ambiguity or lack of clarity renders the terms unenforceable. In a "Pay and Display" car park (a large sign exists in this car park stating the "Pay and Display" heading), the ticket forms a key part of the contractual terms as understood by the consumer. In this case, the signage failed to explain that the time printed on the ticket was inaccurate and should be ignored.- Grace Period not taken into account - As per PPSCoP 5.2, a grace period of 10 minutes applies to all car parks open to the public. This is "a period of time in addition to a parking period where all terms and conditions have been complied with, when no parking charge can be issued". The driver returned to the car at the end of the parking period, using the expiry time noted on the ticket of 15:20. It took 8 minutes to safely stow the baby and pram in the car and drive to the car park exit. The car park CCTV recorded the car leaving at 15:28.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement.
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 waste of time and cancel the PCN.
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.