Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: markeman on November 02, 2025, 08:12:57 pm
-
Apologies for slight delay in response @InterCity125.. the joys of life intervening!
The Assessor's name was Robert Andrews. Thank you for taking the time to write the letter, I'll have a thorough read before sending to align my understanding (I like to at least have a layman's grasp of the legal refs). I assume complaints go to https://www.popla.co.uk/contact > Reason for Contact > Complain About POPLA.
Will confirm once submitted.
-
@markeman
Could you please confirm whether this complaint has been submitted to POPLA for consideration?
-
POPLA Complaint - Procedural error and mishandling of PCN Appeal.
Original POPLA Code -
Assessor Name
Dear Lead Assessor,
I have recently received an appeal response from your organisation relating to the parking charge identified above.
Unfortunately, the appeal response contains what I can only describe as a glaring procedural error on the part of the assessor.
A key point in my appeal was the non PoFA complaint PCN issued by Euro Car Parks.
This complaint relates purely to the assessor's inability to correctly establish the legal requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) and, in particular, the requirements set out by para. 9(2)(e).
Para 9(2)(e) requires that the operator's NtK must contain a section of predetermined text followed by a two limbed invitation to the keeper to either pay the outstanding parking charges or to provide driver details in the instance that the keeper was not driving at the time of the alleged contravention.
I am satisfied that my specific appeal point adequately led the assessor to the precise nature of the issue - that the NtK did not contain the required paragraph of text and legal choice which para 9(2)(e) specifically sets out.
At this point, could I respectfully ask you to read and understand the requirements para 9(2)(e)?
In the appeal response the assessor states the following;
"The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper invitation to the keeper. The PCN states, “If you were not the driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice on to the driver.” I am satisfied that this is a clear invitation from the parking operator to the keeper to identify the driver."
In the first instance, I would immediately draw your attention to the fact that the assessor deliberately manipulates the nature of my appeal point - the manipulation occurs because the assessor is struggling to find a rebuttal point if the appeal point is left unmanipulated - a classic legal deflection technique.
What the assessor should say is, "The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges" - the assessor deliberately curtails my appeal point sentence because the latter part that says "to pay the unpaid parking charges" is very awkward since it is not rebuttable by the assessor as the required mandatory wording is clearly not present on the operators NtK.
In my appeal I set out the total non compliance with para 9(2)(e) and, in particular, the lack of the required statutory wording along with the non presentation of the required legal choice which 9(2)(e)(I) and 9(2)(e)(II) specifies - I also made clear reference to the fact that the NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid charges' as set out in 9(2)(e)(I).
In their response, the assessor deliberately ignores both the missing mandatory wording and the missing invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid charges.
Instead, the assessor deliberately moves focus on the on the sentence which asks the keeper to nominate the driver.
So, as I'm sure you can see, the assessor is very careful not to comment on the core issue ie the critical parts of 9(2)(e) which are missing.
This appears to be a fairly obvious attempt to avoid finding the NtK to be non compliant - the old adage of, "clarity is exactly what I'm trying to avoid" is never better demonstrated.
The assessor is clearly trying to make compliance a subjective issue because objectivity is legally inconvenient.
If the required mandatory wording and subsequent legal choice was present then I am positive that the assessor would have pointed this out instead of tactically deflecting away from the nature of my appeal point.
In simple terms, the invitation to the keeper to identify the driver is not sufficient to satisfy the complete requirements of 9(2)(e) in the manner which the assessor suggests - 9(2)(e) actually has multiple requirements and the single sentence which the assessor mentions would never be enough to meet those requirements.
The assessor implies that the inclusion of this one sentence satisfies the requirements of 9(2)(e) - This is a clear and obvious procedural error since even the most basic examination of the legislation shows that the requirements of 9(2)(e) are far greater.
I am sure that by now you will have studied the precise wording of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2) and, in particular 9(2)(e)?
In order to be compliant the NtK must contain specific mandatory text and legal choices as specified by Schedule 4 of PoFA.
In this instance, the requirements of Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e) are not satisfied by the operators NtK.
To be compliant, the requirements of 9(2)(e) can only be met if a specific paragraph is placed in the NtK which should read as follows;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the current time, Euro Car Parks (the creditor) does not know both the name and a current address for service for the driver.
The keeper is therefore INVITED TO 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 this notice onto the driver.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The required paragraph is clearly missing from the operators NtK.
The information must be presented in this manner to be compliant ie in one paragraph. Compliance cannot be achieved by, for example, placing the information at random points throughout the NtK since this would not present the keeper with the text followed by the legal choice which 9(2)(e) requires - this point is clearly backed up by the precise wording of 9(2)(e) - the mandatory text which must be immediately followed by the invitation to the keeper to pay the charges or nominate another driver.
In this particular instance;
The Euro Car Parks NtK never states the essential mandatory wording required by para. 9(2)(e) - avoided by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges' - avoided and deflected by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never uses the required mandatory word "or" to connect the two required limbs of the legal choices - avoided by the assessor.
The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires - avoided by the assessor.
It remains unclear to me why the assessor behaves in the way that they do since the requirements of PoFA are actually straight forward when understood correctly - this gives the impression that the assessor is carefully tip-toeing around the key points rather than addressing them - compliance with PoFA is actually a check box exercise for each case which is reviewed - it is arguable that POPLA should automatically review NtK's for compliance in any instance where an operator is claiming keeper liability since PoFA compliance is 100% identical in every appeal.
The missing wording / legal choice is fatal to the operator's reliance on PoFA keeper liability as the legislation requires total compliance with para 9(2).
A search online reveals that POPLA continue to make the most basic errors when assessing NtKs for PoFA compliance.
At the present time it appears that all Euro Car Parks NtKs are non compliant since they lack the required wording.
There appears to be a number of POPLA responses online where assessor's state that a ECP NtK is compliant when the required wording is missing - in each instance the assessor either ignores the appeal point or twists the appeal point in order to provide rebuttal evidence.
I await your considered response.
Best wishes,
xxxxxx xxxxxxx
-
I wrote a complaint for someone yesterday which I can probably re-hash for your failed appeal.
Let me know if you want me to do that - it won't take long.
What is the assessor's name?
-
The assessor's response is nonsense.
Notice in particular how they tip-toe around the PoFA issue being careful to avoid the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge' problem.
You could make a complaint to POPLA highlighting this issue.
I agree
-
The assessor's response is nonsense.
Notice in particular how they tip-toe around the PoFA issue being careful to avoid the 'invitation to the keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge' problem.
You could make a complaint to POPLA highlighting this issue.
-
POPLA outcome received - appeal unsuccessful. Their arguments below, does anyone feel these hold water?
If I don't pay now I guess it's the usual debt collector waiting game, followed by the small claims court process for which a successful outcome depends on the competence of their solicitors.
I'd be interested to hear the expert views out there on the path likely to lead to the best outcome.
The appellant has identified as the keeper of the vehicle on the day of the parking event. The operator has provided evidence to demonstrate it has complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. As such, I am considering the appellant’s liability for the PCN, as the keeper.
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. The appellant has stated that the PCN does not comply with PoFA on multiples grounds. PoFA is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Firstly, they state that the period of parking is not detailed on the PCN and the ANPR entry/exit images are not synonymous with a period of parking. Whilst I acknowledge the PCN only includes ANPR entry/exit times, I am satisfied that this is the period of parking in question as a motorists must consider the full duration of their stay, including any time to find a space or leave the site, from entry to exit when parking on the site. There is also no evidence to suggest that the appellant’s vehicle was on any other site during this time.
I note the appellant has referred to Brennan v Premier Parking (2023) however, this is not a Supreme Court case and as such, does not set a precedent for parking.
The appellant has stated that the PCN does not include a proper invitation to the keeper. The PCN states, “If you were not the driver at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued, please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice on to the driver.” I am satisfied that this is a clear invitation from the parking operator to the keeper to identify the driver.
The appellant has also stated that the creditor has been identified as both “Euro Car Parks” and “Euro Car Parks Ltd” and this creates confusion. Whilst I acknowledge the minor differences here, I am satisfied that this is same parking operator and suitable identifies the creditor.
The appellant also mentions that there is no evidence as to how and when the PCN was delivered. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including issuing a PCN to be received within the required timescale. PoFA states that the NTK must be issued and received with 14 days and it is assumed, unless proven otherwise, to be delivered within 2 working days from the date it was issued. For this to happen the NTK needed to have been received by 05/11/2025, as the date of contravention was 22/10/2025. As it was issued on 28/10/2025, I would expect the PCN to be received 2 working days later on 30/10/2025. As such, the PCN complies with PoFA and the parking operator is within their rights to seek the PCN from the keeper.
The appellant has also requested evidence of the landowner contract. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In this case, the parking operator has included a copy of the contract they have with the landowner that shows they have the authority to issue and enforce PCNs on this land.
On this site, the signage explains that this is a guest only car park and guests must register their full and correct vehicle registration on the console inside the pub. The signage also explains that a £100 PCN would be issued for any breach of the terms and conditions. The parking operator has included a redacted list of vehicles that shows the appellant’s vehicle was not registered on the site. As such, the vehicle was parked here in breach of the terms and conditions and this has resulted in the issuance of a £100 PCN.
After considering the evidence from both parties, the vehicle was unauthorised to park and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.
-
Latest update - the ECP has uploaded their evidence to POPLA, links below (apologies for the many images, this was the best method I have at my disposal to safely redact a PDF). I have a couple of days to make any comments, which I'm sure I'll be advised is pointless.
From my layman's perspective they appear to have focused on the Contract Law argument but I'll let those more qualified to opine!
https://ibb.co/93mH77YR
https://ibb.co/KxLKTLgW
https://ibb.co/2Yv316GH
https://ibb.co/Z0FmLyP
https://ibb.co/vNyG5PV
https://ibb.co/hxkf0ySr
https://ibb.co/4nq2tCBq
https://ibb.co/2125dS67
https://ibb.co/V0w8P5Qh
https://ibb.co/N6jk581s
https://ibb.co/v6LPhcsR
https://ibb.co/2791k8vc
https://ibb.co/WNCNxV0c
https://ibb.co/SXsv3wFR
https://ibb.co/0pp1B0jK
https://ibb.co/pjSjr5Rn
https://ibb.co/PnGB3sX
https://ibb.co/DDXZwRXk
https://ibb.co/xKbWv6Cn
https://ibb.co/jvgr6B8T
https://ibb.co/2YcgR6kq
https://ibb.co/6V0Ncm2
https://ibb.co/hJMvvwCH
https://ibb.co/VYvxdKf6
https://ibb.co/Z1Wxxwnj
https://ibb.co/nNyrvKk8
https://ibb.co/BHFJdFvR
https://ibb.co/CsK20pbf
https://ibb.co/jPYWBTbW
https://ibb.co/Z6q9JN5z
https://ibb.co/r2XDNkXw
https://ibb.co/wNCThymV
https://ibb.co/bgSrmZJ1
-
That's the point... there is NO downside. Even if you did nothing until the N1SDT Claim Form lands on your doorstep, as long as you defend, with or without the template I normally suggest, if it isn't struck out, it WILL be discontinued.
-
@jfollows Thank you, please see v2 of POPLA appeal below incorporating feedback (main changes are consistent use of "NtK" abbreviation; latest text copied from PoFA legislation online (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/paragraph/9); latest text copied from PPSCoP Section 14 online (https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf) and expanded for completeness covering all points (a)-(j)).
@b789 Noted re. chance of POPLA success. Happy for the process to play out in full, doesn't seem like much, if any, downside.
POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be drawn.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking”. It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to park” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the NtK to “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"
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the driver". This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made”.
The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)". The the full legal entity name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and registered address are ommitted. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case)” in Paragraph 9(2)(i) and defines when it is deemed “given” in Paragraph 9(4) as "(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period."
The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
Other Considerations
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the Private Parking Sector single Code of Practice ("PPSCoP") titled "Relationship with Landowner", which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land:
"Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:
a) the identity of the landowner(s)
b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;
c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;
d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission
e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;
f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;
g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs
h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;
i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and
j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges"
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
-
I wouldn't place much hope on POPLA. If it works, then great. However, 99% of these ECP PCNs are won when they eventually give it to DCB Legal to issue a county court claim and if you follow the advice, I can guarantee that the claim will either be struck out or discontinued. It just takes longer but there is nothing to worry about.
I am always prepared to take any bet at 10:1 that this will never reach a hearing in county court. Any takers?
-
Good, but when reading that I also want to see precisely what PoFA says, in other words I want you to quote the precise text as well.
If nothing else, some POPLA assessors are, shall we say, a bit dim, so they need strong guidance.
-
My sample POPLA appeal below, I would very much welcome expert advice.
Other POPLA appeals on the forum refer to "3. Defective warning of keeper liability (Paragraph 9(2)(f))" in relation to the PoFA requirement to warn that the keeper will become liable "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given", but I note on the original NtK ECP did use the correct wording so I have excluded this from the appeal.
POPLA Appeal – Euro Car Parks – M&B - The White Horse, Shenley
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I appeal this Parking Charge Notice as keeper only. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions or inferences can be drawn.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with multiple mandatory provisions of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”), and therefore no keeper liability can arise. The operator may only pursue the driver for payment, not the registered keeper. The deficiencies are as follows:
1. Failure to specify the period of parking (Paragraph 9(2)(a))
PoFA requires the NtK to “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”
This NtK contains no “period of parking”. It merely states that a parking charge was issued for “vehicle was not authorised to park” and refers to a date of issue. ANPR systems record entry and exit times, but those are not synonymous with a period of parking because they do not show when the vehicle was stationary. The vehicle may have spent time queuing, manoeuvring, or exiting. The Department for Transport’s statutory guidance and persuasive appeal decisions (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking (2023)) make clear that a period of parking must refer to an actual time parked, not merely camera timestamps. This omission renders the NtK non-compliant with 9(2)(a).
2. Failure to properly invite the keeper to pay or name the driver (Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i))
PoFA requires the notice to “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 provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not invite the keeper to pay. Instead, it commands: “If you were not the driver... please provide full name and address of the driver in writing and pass the notice ont to the driver". This is a material deviation from the statutory wording. Parliament intended the keeper to be given the option either to pay or to name the driver. A command to “inform us” is not an invitation to pay. The omission defeats one of PoFA’s key procedural safeguards and invalidates keeper liability.
3. Failure to unambiguously identify the creditor (Paragraph 9(2)(h))
PoFA requires the NtK to “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”
The NtK makes conflicting assertions, in one that "the Parking Charge is now payable to Euro Car Parks (as the creditor)” and in another "The Parking Charge Notice.. is now payable to Euro Car Parks Ltd (as the creditor)". The the full legal entity name is unclear (possibly omitted), and the company number and registered address are ommitted. Without a full legal identity, the keeper cannot know who the creditor actually is, making the notice defective under 9(2)(h).
4. Ambiguous dating and delivery wording (Paragraphs 9(2)(i) and 9(4))
PoFA requires the notice to “specify the date on which the notice is sent (given)” and defines when it is deemed “given.” The NtK refers only to a “Date Issued” without confirming when or how it was sent or delivered. This vagueness prevents a reliable calculation of statutory deadlines and is another failure to meet PoFA’s strict requirements.
Conclusion
PoFA Schedule 4 is a strict liability framework: every requirement must be met before any right to recover a parking charge from a vehicle’s keeper arises. The NtK in this case fails to meet at least paragraphs 9(2)(a) and 9(2)(e), and is further undermined by non-compliance with 9(2)(h) and 9(2)(i). As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper. The operator may only pursue the driver, whose identity has not been provided. The appeal should therefore be allowed.
Other Consideration
I also require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
-
Just do a search for any other of the multitude of ECP PANs on this forum. Even a POPLA appeal is unlikely o be successful. So what? A POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant.
You can do a search for any other POPLA appeal on here and adapt it if you feel the urge to make one. Even if you do nothing, you can safely ignore all the useless debt recovery letters that you will receive and all you haver to do is defend a claim once they issue it through DCB Legal. We will assist with that and I can guarantee with greater than 99.9% certainty that the claim will either be struck out or discontinued.
If you still want to bother with a POPLA appeal, then show us something you have concocted based on any of the more recent examples you can find on here and we will advise on whether it needs any amendments. There is more than enough material on the forum for you to put something together yourself.
-
ECP have rejected the appeal. Interesting they state "Euro Car Parks do not need to provide evidence of who was driving the vehicle, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to inform of the full name and address within 28 days beginning with the day after the notice was given".
Their response in full:
- https://ibb.co/wrJ6vf5k
- https://ibb.co/kVgKZZky
- https://ibb.co/nsndkhX4
-
Thank you @b789, appeal submitted
-
No one pays a penny to ECP if they follow the advice we give here. Most ECP PCNs that are challenged go all the way to a county court claim which is issued by DCB Legal. As long as any DCB Legal claim is defended, it will eventually either be struck out or discontinued. That is 99.9% for sure.
Normally, you go through the process of initial appeal, rejection, POPLA appeal, rejection, county court claim, defence, strike-out/discontinuance. The initial appeal is generic but it covers the main point that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012 to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
This is the normal recommended appeal process: 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:
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.
Once you receive the appeal rejection, come back and we will provide the POPLA appeal, which will go into greater detail on why the PCN fails to comply with PoFA para 9(2)(e)(i).
-
Vehicle stopped briefly in a pub car park to use the loo, stretch legs and catch up on emails in between ferrying kids around. The pub requires vehicles are registered on arrival but this was missed, resulting in the following NTK:
- https://postimg.cc/CRSjKpJB
- https://postimg.cc/jDcyw3k8
I expect the pub will require proof of purchase to assist in waiving the PCN, but unfortunately nothing was purchased on this occasion.
No action taken re. the PCN yet.
Any guidance from the experts here would be very welcome as always, thank you