Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Sarf London on November 05, 2025, 06:56:03 pm

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: InterCity125 on February 25, 2026, 05:59:17 pm

POPLA Complaint - Procedural error and mishandling of PCN Appeal.

Original POPLA Code -

Assessor Name Rachel Hankinson


Dear Lead Assessor,


I recently received an appeal response from POPLA regarding a PCN issued by Euro Car Parks (ECP).

The response contains a clear procedural error - namely; that the assessor incorrectly establishes keeper liability under PoFA when the NtK clearly omits elements of required mandatory information.

My initial POPLA appeal centred on a number of appeal points but this complaint purely relates to the assessor's incorrect assertion of keeper liability.

In my appeal, I clearly raised the issue of the operators non compliant NtK and, in particular, the omission of both the mandatory wording and the subsequent two limbed legal choice which the operator is required to present to the keeper by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(e).

In very simple terms, as I am sure you will be aware, Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires that the NtK state a prescribed sentence of mandatory wording immediately followed by a direct invitation to the vehicle keeper to either pay the unpaid parking charges themselves or to provide alternative driver details.

If you examine the NtK from ECP you will see that the notice contains no such prescribed wording and, subsequently, no two limbed mandatory legal choice is ever presented to the keeper in the manner set out in the Schedule.

It is clear that my POPLA appeal document adequately drew the assessor's attention to this specific point.

However, the assessor's comments appear to demonstrate that she is not adequately familiar with the precise requirements of PoFA Keeper Liability - instead of working through the matter objectively, examining the precise requirements of PoFA term by term, she appears to make a highly subjective judgement which, unfortunately, bears absolutely no resemblance to the actual objective requirements of the relevant legislation.

In her appeal response she states, "The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to make payment may result in additional costs."

In simple terms, and based on what she has written, the assessor appears to broadly understand my appeal point, namely; it's clearly an NtK with no mandatory wording and no invitation to keeper to pay the unpaid charges or nominate another driver.

This appeal point would obviously constitute a clear failure to meet the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(e) - however, and rather oddly, the assessor then goes on to say, "However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid."

This is a procedural error since the wording referred to by Rachael Hankinson (in her reasoning) is actually the mandatory wording requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(f), and not that of 9(2)(e).

Critically, at no point does the assessor actually refer to the precise requirements of 9(2)(e) - if the required wording (and legal choice) was present on the NtK then she would surely point this out rather than trying to vaguely imply compliance by referencing the mandatory wording from a different term, namely; that of 9(2)(f)?

In essence, the assessor appears to try and 'dig the parking operator out of a hole' by stating that the mandatory wording of 9(2)(f) somehow satisfies both the legally required mandatory wording and two limbed choice required by 9(2)(e) - to be blunt, this is legally illiterate.

(I would also point out the following; that if her stated wording is deemed to satisfy the requirements of 9(2)(e) then the requirements of 9(2)(f) would now be left unsatisfied by the NtK since each term of 9(2) requires its own wording.)

The assessor then moves on with her findings and never attempts to deal with the missing information / choices required by 9(2)(e) - this gives the impression that the assessor is deliberately avoiding both clarity and accruacy on the issue since such clarity and accruacy would leave her in a position where she had to admit that the NtK was not compliant.

To be absolutely clear at this point; nothing in my POPLA appeal ever suggested that the ECP NtK failed to comply with 9(2)(f) - I acknowledge that the mandatory 'warning to the keeper' required by 9(2)(f) (and referred to by Rachael Hankinson when rebutting my appeal point) is indeed present in the operators NtK - however, the presence of this wording does not somehow negate the operators requirement to additionally satisfy the terms of 9(2)(e) in order to produce a PoFA compliant NtK.

The absence of the required mandatory wording and two limbed legal choice is fatal to the parking operators reliance on PoFA to establish keeper liability.

The terms of PoFA are very legally tight and total compliance with Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(a to i) are required in order to invoke PoFA keeper liability - as I am sure you are aware, there is no such thing as partial compliance - 9(2) states that "The notice MUST" contain the listed requirements.




For the purposes of total clarity;


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).

The Euro Car Parks NtK never 'invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges'.

The Euro Car Parks NtK never uses the required mandatory word "or" to connect the two required limbs of the legal choices.

The Euro Car Parks NtK never presents the two limbed legal invitation which para. 9(2)(e)(i) and 9(2)(e)(ii) requires.


The wording (warning to the keeper) mentioned by Rachael Hankinson is irrelevant to the requirements of 9(2)(e) and, instead, is actually a clear reference to the wording requirements 9(2)(f).

It is also important to note, that the warning given in 9(2)(f) is made in clear reference to the operators ability to transfer liability for the charges, onto the keeper, after a period of 28 days.

The requirement of 9(2)(e) is completely different as it deals specifically with an invitation to the keeper (to pay or nominate) which is made, by the operator, within that initial 28 day period - at that point in time, the legal liability for the charge actually lies with the unknown driver and not with the keeper - as such, the legislation requires that operator invites the keeper to pay (or nominate) regardless of the fact that they may not actually be legally liable at that precise point in time.


I look forward to your carefully considered response in this matter.



Best wishes,

xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Sarf London on February 25, 2026, 01:36:24 pm

Yes Please Intercity.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: InterCity125 on February 25, 2026, 07:50:52 am

@Sarf London

With your permission, I would be happy to write you a POPLA complaint?

Whilst this won't overturn the decision, it could provide you with a response where they admit an error - you can subsequently use this if the operator pursues you.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Brenda_R2 on February 24, 2026, 05:22:20 pm

There is one Rachel Hankinson on Linkedin with a bio that indicates that she is an "Appeals Assessor at Ombudsman Services".

Except if you click on "Ombudsman Services" you get redirected to "Energy Ombudsman (Formerly Ombudsman Services) -  If you’re looking to raise a dispute with your energy supplier please visit our website."

So who are POPLA actually using to assess appeals?

Because it would seem they're not using anyone with a working knowledge of the private parking industry?

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:55:57 pm

Quote from: Brenda_R2 on February 24, 2026, 04:49:01 pm

Quote from: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:34:07 pm

Unbelievable.

She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements - this is nonsense.

Given that appealing via POPLA is clearly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, is the appellant in any way disadvantaged by simply not entering into the charade and waiting for the inevitable legal letters?

I believe that over time we have been successfully tweaking appeals regarding non PoFA compliance and, hopefully, we might be getting nearer a point where POPLA have to correctly assess PCNs.

This is the first time I've seen an assessor imply that mandatory wording isn't present - the problem is that she simply bends the rules and determines that the wording required by Paragraph 9(2)(f) also satisfies the legal requirements of 9(2)(e) - of course that is nonsense since 9(2)(e) requires mandatory wording followed by the two limbed choice which is also specified.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: jfollows on February 24, 2026, 04:52:59 pm

Yes.
The courts want to see that every effort has been taken to avoid cases going to court. Following the full formal appeal process is necessary for this.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Brenda_R2 on February 24, 2026, 04:49:01 pm

Quote from: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:34:07 pm

Unbelievable.

She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements - this is nonsense.

Given that appealing via POPLA is clearly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise, is the appellant in any way disadvantaged by simply not entering into the charade and waiting for the inevitable legal letters?

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: InterCity125 on February 24, 2026, 04:34:07 pm

Unbelievable.

She admits that the mandatory wording isn't present but implies that a different warning subjectively satisfies the requirements - this is nonsense.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Sarf London on February 24, 2026, 04:28:00 pm

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor Name Rachel Hankinson

Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for overstaying the maximum time period allowed.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been summarised: • The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. • The signage is inadequate as the text is half the required size and a driver would not be able to see the entrance sign. • There is no evidence of parking, and the operator has failed to include entry and exit images. They require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site. • There is no evidence of landowner authority. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack, the appellant expands on their grounds of appeal in further detail. The appellant has provided images of signage as evidence towards their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my decision.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
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 Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 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. Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and address of the driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary information and the parking operator has therefore successfully transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. The appellant says that the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 as it omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. However, the Notice to Keeper makes it clear that the keeper may be pursued for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid and failure to make payment may result in additional costs.


The appellant says that the signage is inadequate as the text is half the required size and a driver would not be able to see the entrance sign. I note that the appellant has referred to the new code of practice regarding signage. However, this is not yet applicable. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to comply with regarding signage. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the evidence provided by the appellant and the operator shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by both parties, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the maximum stay is 90 minutes, and any breaches would result in a £100 PCN being issued. The parking operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice.

The appellant states that there is no evidence of parking, and the operator has failed to include entry and exit images. They require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site. The site in question is ANPR operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. Two ANPR images featured on the PCN show the appellant’s vehicle registration XXXX XXX entering site at 14:28 and vacating at 16:35, 2 hours 7 minutes after arriving. However, no evidence has been provided by the appellant to show that the driver was in an alternative area between the time frames pictured on the PCN, so we are unable to presume that they were not on site after being pictured entering at 14:28 and not leaving until 2 hours 7 minutes later. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary, I will work on the basis that the information is accurate. As the driver was on site for 2 hours 7 minutes and exceeded the allowed maximum stay, a PCN was issued for breaching the displayed terms. The appellant says that there is no evidence of landowner authority.

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 document provided shows that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCN’s. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.


The paragraph 9  issue was not addressed, but the Assessor has also completely ignored the fact that the signage requirements are the same through all previous versions of the COP and dismissed my argument wholesale simply becuase the current version doesnt apply until later this year.


Thoughts ?

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: b789 on December 17, 2025, 01:23:12 am

That’s good to go, for what it’s worth. As I have said in many identical ECP threads, POPLA is unlikely to be successful but if all the advice is followed and this runs the usual course of a claim eventually being issued and defended, it will eventually be struck out or discontinued.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Sarf London on December 16, 2025, 12:57:34 pm

As expected, they have rejected my appeal. We now move on to POPLA.

Would you please review my POPLA appeal below ? many thanks.

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and I dispute the above-referenced Parking Charge. The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that they cannot transfer liability for the charge to the keeper. I therefore dispute the charge on the following grounds :
1.   Non-Compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA)
2.   Inadequate signage
3.   No evidence of parking
4.   No evidence of landholder authority

Non-Compliance with POFA

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.

Inadequate Signage

I refer to Section 3 (signs and surface markings) of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice Version 1.1 dated 17 February 2025 – the “COP”

The commentary states “Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.”

Section 3.1.2 states “The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects).”

Section 3.1.3 states “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must:
a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to
read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle;”

Section 3.2 states “Where different terms and conditions apply to adjoining stretches of controlled land where there is no physical segregation, signs and/or surface markings must be used by the parking operator within the controlled land for which they are responsible to delineate clearly between these premises and alert drivers to the terms and conditions applying.”

Section 3.4 in the note acknowledges “[…] the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances […]”

The signage at this location fails on all the above criteria.

There is a single entrance sign. It is not the sign included in the operator’s response to appeal – that is located elsewhere. According to the COP (Table A.2) this sign contains ‘group 1 text’ . The COP states that for “Car park entered from higher-speed road or using a length of access road”  the typical approach speed will be 25mph and the Group 1 text should be a minimum of 90mm. This car park is approached from just such a road and as can be seen from photograph 10, the Group 1 text is 45mm – half the required size.

The entrance to the land is shown in photograph 4 in context of the driver’s view. This is the view from 30 metres. It is obvious that a driver travelling at 20+ mph along this road, with the afternoon Winter sun directly ahead, will be looking at the jutting corner of the building, not at an obscure sign on the wall which is the wrong size, contrary to sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the COP.

This view is further made problematic by being mixed in with other signs. The Smart Charge company sign is much bigger and this company even felt the need to put a sign up on the opposite side of the road. In addition, there is much clutter of no parking signs around the area (see photographs 1-3) contrary to sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the COP. Its is ironic that the clutter of other signage has been created by the same parking operator.

There is no obligation to visit Sainsburys. Photographs 5-9 show the route this vehicle took to arrive at a parking space showing that it is perfectly possible (as happened in this case) to park where this car was and leave the site without seeing a single sign.

Considering the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of the COP and PoFA, it is beyond any doubt that the signage is not sufficient to give adequate notice of the charge and bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist.

No evidence of parking

I have seen examples of these ‘Notice to Keeper’ letters shown to me by friends. It seems to be common practice to include photos of the vehicle entering and leaving the site, together with a time stamp. Whilst evidence of entering and leaving site is not evidence of parking, EuroCarParks have failed to include even this basic information in their notice.

I require full unredacted copies of photographs of the vehicle entering and leaving the site which conform to Section 7.3 of the COP. Without these, we only have ECP’s word that an infringement has potentially been committed.

No evidence of Landowner authority

The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landowner of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landowner’s definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints nor that both the landowner and operator are in full compliance with planning permission granted against a Traffic Management Plan.

Section 14 of the COP  defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, to prove that they have the right to enforce the charge in court in their own name

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Sarf London on November 06, 2025, 06:28:35 pm

Thanks b789, I suspected that would be your reply !

Let the motions begin..... dashing off the fruitless appeal to ECP. WIll keep you in the loop.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: b789 on November 05, 2025, 08:40:24 pm

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.

Title: Re: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: jfollows on November 05, 2025, 07:19:52 pm

OK, but in what way does it not comply with PoFA 2012?
Not saying that it doesn’t, but what are you going to say to POPLA when they reject your appeal?
Presumed delivered 31/10 so well within 14 days.

Title: EuroCarParks, Sainsburys, overstay
Post by: Sarf London on November 05, 2025, 06:56:03 pm

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I have just received a Notice to Keeper - copy attached.
The NtK arrived on day 14 and the alleged overstay was for 37 minutes.
This was a Sainsburys car park which used to be 120 mins free parking and was reduced to 90 minutes.
To be honest, the driver probably forgot that the time had reduced.


As It's ECP I presume I'm appealing to them fruitlessly that their NtK is non-compliant ?

"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. 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."

NTK Page 1 https://ibb.co/Jj4MJfv9 

NTK Page 2 https://ibb.co/XrF04NPZ 

Thanks in advance guys .....