Here is one you can use but don't hold your breath for POPLA to uphold it. Where this is going to be won is if they try to litigate with a county court claim. I can assure you with greater than 99.9% certainty that any claim made that is defended with the template defence we provide, will eventually either be struck out or discontinued.
POPLA APPEAL – EURO CAR PARKS (ECP)
PCN number: [insert]
Vehicle registration: [insert]
Date of event: 13/11/2025
Location: Shell – Newport (1 Malpas Road, Newport, Wales, NP20 5PA)
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am appealing as keeper only. The driver will not be identified.
1. No keeper liability – the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 (including failure of 9(2)(e)(i))
Euro Car Parks is attempting to hold the registered keeper liable. That is only possible if, and only if, the Notice to Keeper fully complies with all mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). There is no concept of “partial” or “substantial” compliance. If the statutory conditions are not met, keeper liability does not arise and liability (if any) remains only with the unknown driver.
This Notice to Keeper is not PoFA-compliant. In particular, it fails PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e) requires a Notice to Keeper to: (i) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, and (ii) invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The wording on this Notice does not “invite the keeper to pay” the unpaid parking charges. Instead it tells the keeper that if they were not the driver they should provide the driver’s full name and address and pass the notice to the driver, and it threatens that if the keeper does not provide the driver’s details the operator may pursue the keeper. That is a request to identify the driver (and a threat), not the statutory invitation to the keeper to pay.
Parliament deliberately used the phrase “invite the keeper to pay” in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). A notice that omits that mandatory invitation and replaces it with a demand for driver details is not compliant with PoFA. As a result, Euro Car Parks cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper.
POPLA is therefore invited to allow the appeal on this ground alone.
2. No evidence of the required period of parking – time on site is not parking and Parliament used the word “parking” deliberately
Even if POPLA were to consider the allegation on its merits (which is not necessary given the absence of keeper liability), the charge is not proven because Euro Car Parks has not evidenced any “period of parking”.
PoFA uses the term “period of parking”. Parliament did not use “time on site”, “period on site”, “length of stay”, or similar. This distinction matters. A vehicle can be on a site for a period of time without being parked for that entire period.
Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR camera timestamps. The Notice to Keeper shows only an entry time (09:48:27) and an exit time (10:49:13) and asserts “Time in car park: 1 hour(s) 1 minute(s)”. That is not a period of parking. It is merely the time between two camera captures at the perimeter.
ANPR entry/exit timestamps inherently include non-parking time, including but not limited to time spent driving in, locating a bay, manoeuvring, waiting due to congestion, reading signage and deciding whether to stay, and time spent leaving and queuing to exit. None of that is parking. Euro Car Parks has produced no evidence identifying when the alleged parking period started, when it ended, or whether the vehicle was parked continuously at all.
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of the actual period of parking and evidence supporting it. If the operator’s evidence is merely ANPR entry/exit times, then the statutory concept of a “period of parking” has not been evidenced and the allegation is not made out. POPLA cannot substitute “time on site” for “period of parking” because Parliament did not.
The charge must be cancelled because Euro Car Parks has not proven the alleged breach.
3. Mandatory consideration period and grace period not evidenced and not capable of being correctly applied when the operator relies Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR to calculate “length of stay”. That approach cannot properly measure parking time. It also fails to show that mandatory time allowances were applied.
Rules require a consideration period at arrival to allow a motorist to locate and read signage and decide whether to stay, and a grace period at the end of parking to allow time to leave. These are separate concepts and must be applied separately. Where an operator relies on ANPR camera time, the operator must demonstrate with a transparent calculation that any alleged overstay remains after those required periods are accounted for, and that the calculation is based on parking time rather than camera time.
Euro Car Parks has not produced any calculation or evidence showing how it applied these required periods at this location on the material date, nor how an alleged overstay is said to exist after they are applied to the actual period of parking. In the absence of such proof, the allegation is not established and the charge must be cancelled.
4. Inadequate signage – no proof of prominent terms capable of forming a contract
The keeper disputes that the driver agreed to any contract with Euro Car Parks. This is a petrol station environment with mixed use, including use of the UPS Q Locker. Any contractual terms seeking to impose a £100 charge must be prominently displayed, clear, and readable before parking. The operator must prove that the driver had a fair opportunity to read and understand the terms, including the charge amount, prior to any alleged contract.
Euro Car Parks has not provided sufficient evidence of:
a) the entrance signage as seen by a driver on approach and entry
b) the full wording of the terms, including how any maximum stay is defined and when the timing starts/ends
c) the prominence and legibility of the £100 charge on the signage
d) a dated site plan and photographs showing where signs are positioned in relation to where vehicles can park and in relation to the UPS locker area
e) lighting conditions at the relevant time and whether signage was readable
In the absence of strict proof that the terms were prominently conveyed, no contract can be established and the charge must be cancelled.
5. No proof of landowner authority – Euro Car Parks must evidence every requirement in PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f)
Euro Car Parks has not produced definitive proof that it has authority from the landowner (or a party with sufficient interest in the land) to operate at this site, issue parking charges, and pursue them.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires written authorisation and specifies what that authorisation must evidence. Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof by producing evidence that satisfies all requirements of PPSCoP section 14.1(a) to (f), including:
a) the identity of the landowner or the party with sufficient interest in the land
b) the exact land to which the authorisation applies, with clearly defined boundaries
c) the start date, end date and duration of the authorisation and confirmation it was in force on the material date
d) the scope of the operator’s authority and what enforcement activity is permitted
e) the operator’s authority to issue charges and pursue them in its own name
f) any conditions, exemptions, or restrictions governing enforcement
A generic witness statement, summary letter, or heavily redacted agreement does not provide definitive proof of authority. Unless Euro Car Parks produces evidence addressing all of PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f), POPLA must find that landowner authority is not proven and the charge must be cancelled.
6. Failure to consider mitigation and vulnerability – breach of PPSCoP Annex F
Although POPLA may state it does not assess mitigation, the operator is required to consider it. Annex F of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires operators to act fairly and to consider vulnerability and serious health circumstances when making decisions on enforcement and appeals.
Euro Car Parks was informed that the appellant has been hospitalised with severe diverticulitis, including repeated admissions and significant cognitive impairment affecting their ability to deal with correspondence and deadlines. There is no evidence that Euro Car Parks gave any meaningful or fair consideration to those circumstances. Failure to do so is a breach of PPSCoP Annex F and demonstrates unreasonable and unfair operator conduct.
POPLA is invited to take this breach into account when assessing the overall propriety of Euro Car Parks’ enforcement.
7. ANPR reliability and data integrity not proven
Euro Car Parks relies on ANPR. The operator must prove that the ANPR system is accurate, properly maintained, correctly synchronised, and that the images and timestamps are reliable.
Euro Car Parks is put to strict proof of:
a) maintenance, calibration and audit records for the ANPR system for the period around the material date
b) evidence that the system clock was accurate and synchronised
c) the full ANPR log for this vehicle on the material date to rule out missing reads or double-dip errors
d) evidence of appropriate manual checks before issuing the charge
If Euro Car Parks cannot provide strict proof of reliability and integrity, the allegation is not proven and the charge must be cancelled.
Conclusion
Euro Car Parks cannot transfer liability to the keeper because the Notice to Keeper fails PoFA, including a clear failure to comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) (no statutory invitation for the keeper to pay). In any event, Euro Car Parks has not proven a “period of parking”, relying instead on ANPR camera timestamps which only show time on site and cannot evidence parking. Euro Car Parks has also failed to prove compliance with mandatory time allowances, failed to prove adequate signage capable of forming a contract, failed to provide definitive proof of landowner authority as required by PPSCoP 14.1(a) to (f), failed to consider vulnerability as required by PPSCoP Annex F, and failed to prove ANPR reliability.
I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs Euro Car Parks to cancel the parking charge.